Who has more freedom?
Back in England on a flying visit, I notice a real kickback against the initial surprise, not to say horror, over the Government's decision to ban Michael Savage from the UK thus giving the publicity-seeking chap exactly the oxygen he seeks.
He is not without his supporters back at home and this is the mainstream view in the popular press at least in the UK but this riposte raises the interesting issue of what limits on freedom of speech are reasonable.
Americans are not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded room, but the Times piece is quite right - they have much more freedom of speech in most other areas.
The one that always strikes me is discussion of court cases replete with speculation about whether the accused is innocent.
Which nation is freer - the nation that protects minorities from abuse or the nation that lets a thousand voices scream?
Hello, I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~20~RS~)
Comments
I'm sorry that Savage can't go to the UK, maybe the Euopeans would keep him.
Savage represents what is worse in media talk, but I want to know why Keith Obermann and Ed Shultz who are just as vile were not put on the list.
Complain about this comment
I think its overkill to ban a commentator entry. You get more publicity that they are seeking. Maybe we should focus on real problems such as Aids in Africa, Global warming, and the War or Terror.
Complain about this comment
Back in England - Yes, I know what you mean, but couldn't you say 'Britain' or even the 'United Kingdom' to get the Yanks out of their habit of saying 'England' as a catch-all for the British Isles - which is beyond annoying !!!
Complain about this comment
All I have heard of Michael Savage's views have been second hand but at no point has anyone reported that Mr Savage advocates the murder of any group, unlike for example Fred Phelps or Abdul Musa, so I don't really see how he has ended up on this list. What is it about this "shock jock" that differentiates him from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter?
Looking at the entire list it does seem to be that there are two or three entries at least that are a fop to Moslems as the government seems to be scared to death of offending.
As to the difference in the level of free speech permitted between the US and the UK, I think they is barely a hair in it. Both have long traditions of allowing free speech (some differences due to the nature of libel laws) and both have been faced in recent years with people abusing that right but fundamentally, the right remains highly valued by citizens and governments.
Complain about this comment
Finally some bite to a post.
UK
despite cameras everywhere etc. No the USA depite the lack of ability to move without fear of losing health care etc.
Brits are watched but by people who generally don't care about raising revenue by silly fines for peaceful harmless breaches of some equally silly laws.
free speech in the USA but look at the difference between sanitised US TV programs and those of the UK.
despite the fact that blasphemously I think Little Britain took some characters on for so long they became boring(and I got bored of puke scenes and " bitsy") and lost the punch.
Like others closer to home.
Try shouting "Viva la Evolution" in the wrong state.
maybe because the Brits are "restricted" so much they tend to be better practised at ignoring it (bit like Catholics and the pope;).
It doesn't seem as if British people are too reserved or un free to speak.
The freedoms in the US seem to be in word only.
It is the media not the ban that give the platform when something like this happens. Anyway America shouts freedom of speech but just you try saying what this fellow did and what is the reaction.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6107339
Now if the university of Oxford asked him to speak there would be an uproar.
From the same people that want to allow the sort of free speech that is so prevalent here.
Now when I hear no uproar over these people .
Or indeed Obama the US president speaking at a catholic university.
I'll say fine spout your tripe.
a few random thoughts and when it comes down to it I'd rather error on the side of caution over speech than error on the side of dropping bombs.
At some stage if the fight is to stop the combatants must sit down and gasp a few words out to each other.
If those words are "I'll kill you all" there's not much chance of peace.
Were free in different ways.
If there is a street fight and one guy is shouting from the side lines "kick his head in"
Would he get arrested?
Think about it. Nothing to do with them. And they encourage murder.
What would you say in the jury.
"He was free to speeak"
Complain about this comment
Who has the most closed circuit cameras? Who allows local councils to use anti-terror legislation to check up on possible school catchment cheats? Who arrests opposition MPs for doing their job of holding government to account?
Complain about this comment
5, happylaze -
Your link is missing something and this time the "page not found" is not due to the sneaky br thing. I hope you can redo it because I'd like to see it.
Complain about this comment
Good for the UK! The sooner we learn to differentiate between freedom of speech and the need for civil debate of social issues. and thetoric designed to incite violence and spread hatred the better off we will be as a nation.
Savage's fixation on illegal immigration, his constant attacks against Spanish-speaking people, and his incendiary rhetoric against same-sex marriage and homosexuality are inconsistent with what most civilized countries do, what our nation is supposed to stand for, and can easily lead to social unrest.
The same goes for Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Dobbs and the rest of the Inquisitors.
Complain about this comment
I remember the U.S. declaring John Lennon and Cat Stevens persona non grata, so I can hardly point fingers at the U.K. for this!
However, on a recent broadcast of BBC News America, there was a report about a street artist who has been painting walls around London that featured phrases from the Koran. At one point the reporter casually mentioned that the police had painted over one of his works (a shame because the guy is really quite good) because they thought it might stir up trouble. The report included the artist disputing the cops' assertion that the artwork was going to cause trouble, but otherwise he seemed remarkably accepting of what happened. And then the report continued on to illustrate some of this other works.
I was shocked. No, really, I'm not being dramatic. I was stunned. Growing up in the U.S. you tend to take the Bill of Rights for granted. The first amendment prevents the police from destroying any work art, not to mention one that contained religious messages!
It made me think that as similar as the U.K. and U.S. turned out to be, the American Revolution did indeed expand individual freedoms in a very real way, ways that are still evident today.
Let me be clear: I don't believe the British are in any way a repressed people, but I do believe Americans are the freer of the two.
Complain about this comment
happylaze (5)
'If there is a street fight and one guy is shouting from the side lines "kick his head in"
Would he get arrested?'
Possibly, since incitement to violence isn't protected speech.
In general I think you aren't as familiar with the American way of life as perhaps you think you are. I wouldn't hesitate to make my views on evolution (or abortion or any other topic) known in any part of the land. It's my right and all Americans know it. They're free to disagree strongly and loudly, but frankly I don't think anybody would really care what I think.
Complain about this comment
Dominick (8)
"The sooner we learn to differentiate between freedom of speech and the need for civil debate of social issues."
And just who would you suggest should decide the difference between the two?
I will allow no one to decide what I can and can't say. Don't tread on me!
Now where did I put my musket and powder horn?
Complain about this comment
# 1 MagicKirin wrote:
"I'm sorry that Savage can't go to the UK, maybe the Euopeans [sic] would keep him./Savage represents what is worse in media talk, but I want to know why Keith Obermann [sic] and Ed Shultz [sic] who are just as vile were not put on the list."
I don't get US TV or radio so I know little about any of these individuals. [I imagine I could probably access some of their work on the web if I wanted, but I have other things to be doing.]
However I've looked up their profiles on Wikipedia. While Savage seems a fairly unpleasant individual, I'm still rather surprised that he's been lumped in with eg Phelps. Some of his views don't seem much more right wing than the average Daily Mail editorial. [Mind you, that's pretty right wing.]
The profiles of Olbermann and Schultz indicate that they are liberals [or left wing or progressive or whatever.] They do not indicate any views so extreme that they would justify their being called 'vile' by a normal objective person.
So perhaps Magic for once would care to provide some evidence, instead of the usual snide amears?
Complain about this comment
I dont have a problem with Great Britain refusing to let Michael Savage into their country. I dont have a problem if the chose not to allow El Rushbo into the country either. What these right wing media personalities are trying to do is appeal to extremist who fear, wrongly I might add, that the government will intrude on every portion of their lives. Savage and El Rushbo are not advocating democracy. They are not advocating freedom. They support such practices as Waterboarding and Torture. That is what I believe is the reason, why Savage is not being allowed into the Country. The British Government feels that it can not in good conscience allow somebody to advocate the commission of War Crimes, or somebody who defends those horrendous practices. I see where they are coming from. Savage and El Rushbo support such practices. I can see where the Labour Party stands on this. It is my knowledge that they wouldnt allow David Duke into the country either.
Having said that, I think there has to a balance. Here in America we do have freedom of Speech. I can say what I want when I want, and no body has to listen if they dont feel like listening. That is what we were taught growing up in school. From what I have seen, Britain has free speech too, Although no written constitution causes confusion as to what citizens can and can not say.
Complain about this comment
ref #8
Bit of double standard you have there ST
What about the hate mongers on MSNBC, Shultz, Ariana Huffington and the Daily Kos
Complain about this comment
9, AndyPost -
I'm not familiar with the story of the street artist, but when you say he was painting on walls, was it then graffiti? No matter how talented the artist or how good the art, graffiti (often considered to be vandalism) are painted over (destroyed) all the time, lawfully, in the U.S. If the artist was painting on walls of private buildings with the permission of the owners, then that's a different matter entirely. Which was it?
Complain about this comment
# 14
I refer to my clarification of Magicspeak on the previous [and other] threads.
In Magicspeak, 'hater', 'hate monger' etc etc means anyone Magic disagrees with and/or anyone in any way more liberal than Magic [which covers a multitude] and/or anyone who in thought, word or deed goes against any policy or practice of the government of Israel.
There is a certain bizarre irony in the fact that MK uses the adjective 'hate' as an allegation more than anyone here - when hate is clearly what he is consumed with.
Complain about this comment
10 is incitement to genocide?
and good luck on speaking free as long as you say the same things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbfA5q0QaNI
is intimidation illegal?
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html
you tube the results for "intimidating protestors"
funny how the brits are the only ones being intimidated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjhEcn3teyM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSbbI1ut__s
Bere here's that link again
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6107339
Complain about this comment
"9. At 11:32pm on 08 May 2009, AndyPost wrote:
I remember the U.S. declaring John Lennon and Cat Stevens persona non grata, so I can hardly point fingers at the U.K. for this!"
For the Record,John Winston Ono Lennon was eventually allowed to stay in the United States and recieved a Green Card from the INS.
Complain about this comment
American have never faced the terror that the UK and Europe has. 9/11, a plice matter was turned into a Western Crusade by George W. Bush out of fear and fear mongering. Rabid mouth Talk Show Host like Savage help spur Bush on. People like Savage are always cowards. You find them in US history as leaders of lynch mobs.
7/7 was caused by rabid speaches coming from George W. Bush's mouth. He agitated and rabble roused until weak minded people believed his for or against. Those against, took lethal action against the public's interest.
It was said on NPR that if Savage said the same things about Christinity or Judism that he says about Islam, he would have been driven off the air. Savage is playing the race or ethnic card. He is Jewish therefore he knows he can get away with his vitrolic speech. Because in the US every group of people Black, White, Red or Yellow can be criticized for their errant ways, but no one is allowed to criticize Jews. And this is the main cause of Anti-Semitism.
So Mr. Savage can feel safe in the arms of Goebbles as he dreams on in his den of hatred.
Complain about this comment
9 that was probably Banksi
http://www.banksy.co.uk/
And I doubt it was his wall.
Are graffiti artists in the US allowed to paint anywhere?
In Eugene they get paid to but not every where.
I got an artistic comment to carve into the Lincoln memorial but they would arrest me.
And 10 I am VERY aware of America's so called tolerance to others thoughts being spoken.
Complain about this comment
11 lol but that' s intimidation and very much what I have heard. never a threat mind you, just the casual mention .
See I see that a s worse than calling some one a "c" or something.
Is there a reason when I have in no way threatened you that I have to know you have a gun.
(Not you personally but some people)
Gherkin
no STANDARD. He has standards.
fair nuff.
Some hate speech is the equivalent of saying I'll run you over you defenceless pedestrian.
If AQ just printed a few contributors letters to this post and the people over there believed it they would assume they better send them bombs anyway.If it is seen that it is acceptable.
Complain about this comment
bere, I think I may have found happy's link. It's a transcript of Ahmadinejad's U.N. Speech in 2006. I think he was going for the record in introducing the region that must be debated at all times.
Happy, you forget that freedom of speech does not mean that people have to hear you, understand you or believe you.
Interestingly, Ahmadinejad's first topic was to wonder why people wanted nuclear weapons and the second was to question why nations exacerbated hostilities in other nations.
I would post the link, but happy actually posted it correctly (unless I've got the wrong story). In the NPR site, search for 6107339, which is the story number.
Complain about this comment
18 yes when he moved his money over to the states to get out of british taxes;)
Complain about this comment
19 well said.
savage the savage
Complain about this comment
I disagree with happy on a number of things in this thread, but I suspect that I agree with him on one thing - the freedom of of the american cop to throw in jail anyone he wants to. Our local sheriff wants us to give him $150m to extend the local jail (sorry, public safety building) so that they can imprison ever more people for amazingly trivial offences.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
lol andy I'm not having a go . I thought I'd link to banksi . scroll to the right and notice the guy on a ladder painting a white wall with a rat on it a strange grey colour that seems more out of place then the rat.
then notice the police sirens and Bills etc that give it away as most likely the US . (though maybe canada)
BTW the mind that comes up with those free thoughts was brought up in the oppressive UK.
A land that encourages art (as did the USSR) because it is easier than straight libelling someone.
No one could say "tony is the devil" in print. they can put a picture up with him and his horns.
Complain about this comment
25 Seanspa
EXACTLY why I feel less free in the US than in the UK.
Freedom of more than speech that is what I want.
As for the dinnasbad speech.
Sorry but that is why I tried to leave his name out etc.
It's not what you say but who you are when you say it. it seems.
but sorry enough. there are plenty of other examples.
The US HUGE prison industry.
where all are looked at as meal tickets is a perfect example , so thanks.
Anyway I don't care about all peoples comments. Just the ones that encourage murder.
Complain about this comment
I'm not exactly sure Taxes were the entire reason that Lennon moved to the United States from The United Kingdom in 1971, never to return. At the time he was heavily involved in Left Wing Political Activism, protesting the Vietnam War and Speaking out on behalf of the Black Panther Party. At the time, Lennon associated himself with people like Jerry Rubin and Bobby Seals, to name but a couple.
When he moved hear it wasn't because of Taxes. He simply fell in Love with New York City, which in may ways reminded him of Liverpool.
Complain about this comment
25, seanspa -
Yes, it's scary living in a country where you can be arrested and thrown into jail simply because a cop is having a bad day. And then be told that even though "it's normal to be upset when you're arrested for no reason" you should shut up and not ask any questions about why you were arrested or what you can do because the cops get really annoyed when you ask questions in jail and will do what they can to keep you there longer. (As happened to my son.)
I'm afraid I'll never get over that and the eternal chill it caused, because a cop at the jail told me also, over the phone, with no irony, "it's normal to be upset when you're arrested for no reason." I guess the reason the cops know this is because it's normal in this country to arrest people for no reason. That is just about the most disturbing thing I've ever heard and the cop was clueless as to the meaning of what she'd just said.
Complain about this comment
27. happylaze:
Never thought of it that way. (Nice link, btw. Hope people look at some of his stuff very closely. Says a lot.)
Complain about this comment
29 lol asf maybe?
bere it is scary
onto freedoms. which country has more locked up . because that country would be the looser.
I can go to you dear old gran and con her out of all her life savings, with words.
Am I allowed to and is that covered by free speech?
Complain about this comment
Policemen in all places have the freedom to arrest anyone that they choose.
There are some places that, if one must be arrested, are more preferable to others.
Complain about this comment
Addendum
It is my opinion that Americans, as a rule, are very naive about the powers of policemen, not only in the US, but especially in other countries.
Complain about this comment
33. At 01:46am on 09 May 2009, aquarizonagal wrote:
"Policemen in all places have the freedom to arrest anyone that they choose."
Only if they tell you why and what law you are supposed to have broken. Here, anyway.
Complain about this comment
13 AmericanSportsFan
I absolutely despise Limbaugh, and although I've never had the privilege to listen to Savage, I suspect I'd feel the same. However, I totally disagree with banning them. They are free to voice their opinion, just as any other citizen.
This is similar to the original issues form the 70s, I think, with the American Nazi Party demonstrations. As despicable as their opinions are, they have a constitutional right to free speech unless and until they cross the line into inciting violence, breaking the law, or endangering public safety.
If you don't protect everyone's speech, then you end up with "free-for-the-party-in-power-at-the-moment" speech. Otherwise known as toeing the party line, long live the party.
Complain about this comment
There are a few points to contribute to this debate:
George Galloway, the British Member of Parliament, was banned from entering Canada earlier this year. He has been a consistent critic of the war in Iraq, he spoke out against it in Parliament but that doesn't make him an "undesirable" or "hate preacher." Indeed, he was on the 'Stop the War' protest march in America in February 2003 with another chap in the news a lot just lately - Barak Obama. He was due to speak in Canada about the folly of Iraq War. Galloway also raised funds for the victims in Gaza earlier this year, taking a hundred vehicle convoy of aid for the people affected by the bombing. Apparently, it was this act which caused the Canadian Government to ban him, as they claimed he was supporting Hamas. Interesting point, because Hamas ARE the elected Government in Gaza, and the UN also give their aid to Hamas as well to distribute amongst the needy. Hamas run the 'social services' government ministry. It seemed a bizarre reason to ban him.
In the early 1970's, the US Government banned John Lennon. He spoke out against the Vietnam War. It was at a time when there was a huge public movement against the war. Nixon had failed to deliver on his election promise of withdrawing from Vietnam. However, from memory, the reason given by US to ban Lennon was a drugs/cannabis conviction he'd received in UK. A breach for which he'd paid a fine in the UK, not served a prison sentence.
In those two examples, it would seem the formal reason given for the ban, was different to the real reason for the ban.
Judging from the description of Michael Savage on Wikipedia, I see no reason to ban him, obnoxious though he may be. Its better that these people are allowed to visit and express their views, and whilst he maybe on the fringe of what's legally allowable, he doesn't appear to go much further. Furthermore, if he had been allowed in, and then started inciting violence, he would have been arrested and probably deported. The image of people who hold apparently extreme views from all political and religious corners, is often distorted by the media. When you hear them speak, then read the press report, you wonder if they're writing about the same person. Things are taken completely out of context in order to sensationalise.
Why this news story has come out now is puzzling. The list was made several years ago. Snoop Dogg, Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed, lifestyle guru Martha Stewart, US animal rights activist Dr Jerry Vlasak, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and the Israeli Likud party member Moshe Feiglin have all been denied entry into Britain for one reason or another. Since 2005, a total of 220 have been denied entry into Britain. At the centre of the story is the news there appears to be "a list" which has sixteen names on it. Why has this suddenly come out nowwhen the "list" has existed for over three years? This week was going to be a bad week for British Governemnt, particularly over MP's expenses. I think this is a "distraction" story, slipped out to divert some attention away from the real news. I vaguely remember reading about the existence of this list last year sometime. I think the news has been re-released.
I might be wrong. The story might have been generated by Michael Savage himself. Has he applied to come to Britain and been turned down? Anyone know? Or has he just discovered he's on the list, and is angered, but had no plans to come to UK anyway? In any event, I note he plans to "sue the Government of England." I wish him good luck with that. There isn't one.
Complain about this comment
Bere (15)
"I'm not familiar with the story of the street artist, but when you say he was painting on walls, was it then graffiti?"
Good question, but, no, the story was clear that it was painted over (with bright red paint, no less) because the police felt it threatened the peace. The artist was featured partly I think because his art is considered controversial. That wasn't the only reason. I'm no art critic, but I think the guy has talent.
I agree that the first amendment does not give protection to individuals who are violating other individuals' property rights.
Complain about this comment
Ref 5 happylaze
Happy - you're on form. More good points from you tonight.
Complain about this comment
marygrav (19)
"7/7 was caused by rabid speaches coming from George W. Bush's mouth. He agitated and rabble roused until weak minded people believed his for or against. Those against, took lethal action against the public's interest."
Didn't have that effect in the U.S. Maybe you should look closer to home for reasons.
Complain about this comment
"Yes, it's scary living in a country where you can be arrested and thrown into jail simply because a cop is having a bad day."
I don't think the authors of this and other like minded posts actually know the US well. We don't have national police, and even state by state local jurisdictions differ. So these broad statements are obviously false. I've lived in various jurisdictions in the US for 60 years and have never [at least since the demos of the 60s and 70s] been afraid of the police. No I am neither wealthy nor a member of the upper crust, just a law abiding citizen. Is the "nothing" for which the alleged persons were "hassled" perhaps possession of cannabis, public indecency or some other indiscrete behaviour that is perhaps not illegal in the culpret's home jurisdiction? I spent the last 8 years making public statements against the president that would have gotten me arrested in a large number of countries, but no official even looked at me crossly. I recently received a ticket from an out of sorts policeman, took it to court and had the judge throw it out.
So tell me, where is this scary totalitarian country I've been reading about located?
Complain about this comment
30 bere
I'm afraid that this is another of the prices for freedom. We are more free when we do not have a centralized national police force, or direct federal or state control over all the law enforcement jurisdictions. Too much police power in centralized hands is dangerous.
So that leads us sometimes to truly tragic "Keystone Cops" incidents. Most of the time Barney Fife has an Andy to keep him in check, but some places aren't so lucky. I'm truly sorry for what happened to your son. But it usually catches up with the bad cops, the ones who got in it for the wrong reasons- the flash of the badge, the mystique of the uniform, the mantle of power. The PA State Police check backgrounds of the applicants from the local PDs and sheriffs offices very carefully, and the Federal govt. is even more careful.
Complain about this comment
The British graffiti artist (not Banksi) had painted a wall with the owner's permission and encouragement, but the police had it painted over. At least that't the impression I came away with from watching the programme. He was good.
The thread's central question is unanswerable: We are un-free in both places but in different ways.
Peace, Siblings
Complain about this comment
It's my experience that many police officers, no matter where you are, like the power their position gives them and will excercise that power as much as they can get away with. Not all police officers by any means, I doubt (or hope not) even most of them. But the powertrippy ones are often the ones on the front line dealing with the public because they're the ones who can't get promoted (at least in this country).
On the subject of the article, it's a thorny subject. I'm against stopping people from coming to the country just because they've said nasty things, but I do believe that there has to be laws to protect minority groups from people wo would threaten them and incite others to harm them. I'd say let them into the country and then, if they do or say anything unacceptable whilst here, arrest them and kick their asses out never to return. Give them a chance, but only one.
That being said, I support the Phelps family being banned from entering the country because they were quite open that they were only coming here to cause trouble. I think if you openly admit that you're planning on entering a country to commit a crime (their style would be a public order offence at least) then you really shouldn't be surprised when the government tells you "Nope, you're not getting in."
Complain about this comment
Bere (30)
All Americans should read this: http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14528res20040730.html
It's the ACLU's instructions on how to deal with cops. A very worthwhile read.
By the way, if you feel your rights were violated, I strongly encourage you to take them to court. If it's a matter of money, take your case to the ACLU. They'll represent you if they think you have a case.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
37, Richard: "When you hear them speak, then read the press report, you wonder if they're writing about the same person. Things are taken completely out of context in order to sensationalise."
I suggest you go to Youtube and listen to some clips of Savage's radio programs. Reading his profile on Wikipedia is one thing; hearing the man in his own tone of voice and words is quite another. I don't have an opinion on whether he should be banned from anywhere, but I find him extremely nauseating and would not have believed it had I not heard it for myself.
Complain about this comment
12 John in Dublin
44 Kittle
Sorry, I missed your reference: who is/were the Phelps family? Rings a bell, but perhaps they didn't get a lot of coverage stateside?
Complain about this comment
To#35 Britishish
In your life, you must have most fortunate.
Complain about this comment
"but the Times piece is quite right"
Did I miss something - the link is to The Sun, another of the Murdoch papers, hardly The (no longer august) Times. In any case, persons as diverse in interests such as Maher Arar and Amy Winehouse are banned from entering the USA; the only difference that the apology for a Home Secretary published a list, much as there are "most wanted" fliers. It's probably a diversionary tactic by Jacqui Smith who has other problems, not least hanging onto her job in light of the current expenses scandal.
Complain about this comment
41 -
The scary country is the U.S., where I have lived my entire life (except for three years as a child). The arrest happened in California. The cops at the jail agreed there was no reason for the arrest. My son and a friend were leaving a party, had no cannabis or any other illegal drug, were minding their own business, and in court the judge himself was annoyed that his time was being wasted and dropped the whole thing (the charge had ended up being "resisting arrest.")
I believe you are one of those people who because something has not happened to you personally you refuse to believe it happens at all. Random pointless arrests are not at all uncommon in just about every state. It happened to the middle-aged father of a friend of my son's. It has happened to acquaintances of mine, and I am a normal middle-class person who does not consort with criminals.
The media was full of stories of people being arrested at rallies during the Bush years, but I suppose it was all made up. That sort of thing just does not happen here, does it, because it hasn't happened to you personally.
Wake up.
Complain about this comment
49. At 02:49am on 09 May 2009, aquarizonagal wrote:
To#35 Britishish
"In your life, you must have most fortunate."
I've always been a good boy :-)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
48, Via-Media
The Phelps family are very well known in the U.S. They are the ones who stand near the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq holding signs that say "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates [Homosexuals]." (Don't know if the mods will allow the word they really use on their signs.) They are the ones who claim that God is killing American soldiers because he hates homosexuals. They demonstrated at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the young gay man murdered in Laramie, Wyoming several years ago.
I would suggest you watch them on Youtube but I wouldn't advise my worst enemy to do that. They make Michael Savage look like Tinkerbell.
Complain about this comment
To#51 Bere1954
Well said!
However, it is even worse in other places. Not that this excuses abuse of power in the US. I have seen this power abused often with profiling of minorities.
It is well past time that all such abuse is challenged and stopped.
Complain about this comment
51 bere
But there are signs that things are changing. More and more municipalities are installing cameras into all of their vehicles for precisely this reason (and esp. because Uncle Sam is picking up part of the bill.) The sensational videos of police brutality are proof of this, because there are immediate and severe repercussions for police offenders. Even the fact that these videos are being made public is a change for the better.
Many of the Buford P. Justus types are also being weeded out by professionalization standards. A growing number of law enforcement agencies require bachelor degrees in police science just to get hired. There will always be bullies, but slowly the odds are being shifted against them. We as a country has to keep up the pressure to make sure that changes continue for the better- and it's better and safer now than probably at any point in the last century.
Complain about this comment
55, aqua -
I realize it is worse in other places, but we are supposed to be The Land of the Free etc, the "greatest country in the world" with "more freedom than anywhere else," and that makes it particularly galling. I don't think the other places where it's worse claim to be the freest countries in the world. Here you're free only until you're arrested on some cop's whim.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
54.bere54 wrote:
48, Via-Media The Phelps family are very well known in the U.S.
They made quite a fuss of threatening some school students here over a play a few months ago. Extremely viciously. That's why they're on the list.
(I don't think anyone seriously expected them to turn up, but they certainly went in for incitement of any allies they might have had, and if I remember rightly the kids had to be given police protection just in case.)
I've no idea what the play was that got them going. Marlowe's Edward II? Howard Brenton's The Romans, perhaps?
Complain about this comment
56, Via-Media -
I used the decry the advance of technology (because it is hard for me!) and thought all the stuff on Youtube was silly nonsense, until I got high-speed internet and realized exactly what you are saying. One video of a bad cop speeds around the world and does create change. I was blown away by the video of the cop attacking the bicyclist in New York (and there is no other way to describe that) and it's come to the point now where the authorities cannot ignore what the rest of the world is seeing. Perhaps the fear of the ever-present cell phone cameras will control the police where nothing else would.
Complain about this comment
54 bere
Thanks, I knew I knew the name from somewhere. Yes, you are right- the Phelps family are in a totally different category. The right of free speech only extends to the point that your speech infringes on the rights (and privacy) of others.
I actually feel sorry for people like that. They are so blinded by their misguided beliefs that the miss the real message of the faith they so horribly corrupt (but their kind is not limited to the Christian faith, or only to those of any faith at all. Separate debate, I think.)
My problem: drawing the line. Who gets to decide where it is drawn? Does it shift from administration/government to administration/government? Who sets the criteria? How do you differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable?
A hypothetical example: if a black British subject had attempted during the civil rights marches of the 60s to enter the US, with the express intent of participating in say a sit in or a march, would the authorities be justified in barring them admission? They'd be intent on breaking local and state law...
Or, if Amnesty International or Doctors Without Borders try to get into say Sudan or Zimbabwe, with the express intent of providing aid to the starving, are those governments justified in turning them away.
Free speech, and freedom in general, is a very loose ball of thread. Start tugging at untidy bits and pieces and the whole thing can come unraveled.
Complain about this comment
Justin.
"Which nation is freer - the nation that protects minorities from abuse or the nation that lets a thousand voices scream?'
These are not mutually exclusive.
In any case, freedom of speech does not equate with power. For all the noise we make, we have very little voice.
Complain about this comment
Ah, I remember now. Yes, it was a school production of The Laramie Project that they were going to protest. I thought there was something odd about my memory of it being funerals they were coming over here to cause trouble at. I saw a production at a local college a couple of years ago. Very moving play and I would recomend everyone should go see it if they have the chance. The play's all about the aftermath of Matthew Shepard's murder and Fred Phelps crops up during the retelling of the funeral and it shows him for the idiot he is. I dare say, quite apart from the whole telling children it's okay to be gay thing, that that's one of the reasons he is so against the play. :p
Complain about this comment
60 bere
Hang my head in shame. My cell phone is a cell phone. No photos, no internet, no games. I use it to (gasp) make phone calls, so I guess the police are safe around me.
Though it does play "Flight of the Valkyries" when I get an incoming call...
Complain about this comment
As a Canadian, the Galloway banning really bothers me.
The deportation, and subsequent trial and conviction in Germany, of Ernst Zundel does not.
What's the difference? Galloway holds polarizing views on a topic of central importance to global politics. He is clearly a supporter of one side in this complex issue, and has made controversial statements in support of controversial organizations.
Zundel is a forthright Jew-hater. His holocaust denials are open calls for a new "final solution," this time to avenge the "slander" of Germans by what he calls holocaust propaganda.
Where Galloway is controversial, Zundel clearly advocates hatred. Controversial opinions should be acceptable, hate speech is not.
Yours,
Pinko
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII/McJakome2
You do not have the right to imply that someone has been guilty of a criminal act when the opposite has been expressly stated, nor are you entitled to suggest that others draw such an inference. That is not a 'freedom'; it is an abuse.
Complain about this comment
63.Kittle wrote:
"Ah, I remember now. Yes, it was a school production of The Laramie Project."
Thanks. Couldn't remember. I thought the likelihood of them knowing anything about the two plays I mentioned would be pretty slim ;-)
Complain about this comment
Thank you BBC for quickly proving my point about America being a far freer place than the UcK (or anywhere else in Europe.) Posting #58 being suppressed by British government hired cenosors is all the proof anyone could need. Case closed.
Complain about this comment
64, Via-Media -
That's okay. All my cell phone does is make phone calls and I can barely do that with it because I forget to press the "send" button and then wonder why it's not ringing. But the rest of the world seems to have camera phones and I think they'll watch our backs.
Complain about this comment
To#61 Viamedia
Very good post!
Your analogy of freedom being a "loose ball of thread" is so apt. Any time we pull at one thread, another unravels and more people become afraid. There was a song that said "freedom was just another word for nothing left to lose."
I think that freedom is really another word for FEAR.
We have fear of the 'other' who is different from us. Fear that we might have to actually take responsibility for our own actions. Fear that someone has something we might also want.
Fear! Fear! Fear!
We fear freedom most of all because then we might have to accept that the the thing we most fear lives within ourselves.
Complain about this comment
MaryGrav - "American have never faced the terror that the UK and Europe has. 9/11, a plice matter was turned into a Western Crusade by George W. Bush out of fear and fear mongering."
Mocking and ridiculing the events of 9/11 is well over the top for even the most committed anti- Americans; it is taking anti-Americanism to new extremes of eccentricity.
The idea that Americans have not experienced terrorism and that 9/11 was a "police matter" is simply bizarre. It is a matter of ordinary courtesy and common decency to avoid such insults, especially as the comments are not merely offensive - they are entirely false.
I would challenge you or anyone else who mocks the events of 9/11 to travel to Manhattan and proclaim your ideas. Would you have the courage?
Complain about this comment
Who has more freedom? A side from all, the answer is the very, very rich. They are not so much tethered by government or religion.
The poor are subjects of their government and even the major religion of the area. Freer, one country or another sorry you don't put words in my mouth. The United States is not a free country, it is as the rest a propaganda based society. You may not see it unless a crime of the governments choice happens to you. And when and if it does, there is no one who will believe you.
There is a persona that through the control of the information media that is presented to the people and it happens in every country. There are ideas placed in the citizens minds. Drilled into their lives is a common salt that protects the government from bring revealed. That to be taken as the truth or to be denied.
The worlds people are subordinate and the true human instinct is subverted unto a lesser being delegating their lifetime and their authority that they never even know is taken from them.
It isn't freer one nation or another but a society that is more prosperous, organized, a populous that more appeased and most compliant. It is a lot of mind control with stipulated and memorized responses.
The people in their respected countries do not know how powerful and censored their mass media is. Everything is built around what their government wishes to be their living endeavour. The id is mapped and how to satisfy the basic self worthiness of a individual to secure their needs is exploited by their cultivation of the power at hand.
PS. The script of this form is binding upon the freedom to write when one changes ones choices. It deletes other words present. The insert key is redundant. This happens by choices defined by the publishers of a form and is dependent upon a predesignated choice of the proprietors when one logs in to post their thoughts and ideals.
Complain about this comment
70, aqua -
I have very little patience with all the fears you mention, but I do fear the police. Not always, but often. We have "incidents" even here in our little town. A police officer used a taser on a 15-year-old boy whose only crime was to refuse to get into his step-father's car, and we don't know if the boy had a good reason for refusing. There was a public outcry and I think the department had to rethink their use of tasers.
I should be okay because due to circumstances beyond my control I have become good buddies with the police chief but I won't go into that here.
Complain about this comment
To#71 Timothyr444
True courage is doing what must be done even when one is totally terrified.
Some people can never over come their fears and must be forgiven when they choose not to be free.
Complain about this comment
71. TimothyR444:
"I would challenge you or anyone else who mocks the events of 9/11 to travel to Manhattan and proclaim your ideas. Would you have the courage?"
So, according to you, speech can (as a previous poster has already suggested) legitimately be challenged through intimidation and threats? Because it might be unpopular at a certain time and in a certain place? It is not a universal 'right' after all, then?
In another time, and another place, perhaps you might write: "I would challenge you or anyone else who criticizes lynching to travel to Georgia/Mississippi/Alabama and proclaim your ideas. Would you have the courage?"
Think about it.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
british-ish
"So, according to you, speech can (as a previous poster has already suggested) legitimately be challenged through intimidation and threats? Because it might be unpopular at a certain time and in a certain place? It is not a universal 'right' after all, then?
In another time, and another place, perhaps you might write: "I would challenge you or anyone else who criticizes lynching to travel to Georgia/Mississippi/Alabama and proclaim your ideas. Would you have the courage?"
Think about it."
Not a single word of this post has the remotest connection with anything I said - even parenthetically.
Please take the time to READ my post before you respond, unless there was simply an error and you responded to the wrong one.
Complain about this comment
To#73 Bere54
I speak here in a more global way about freedom and fear, not to anyone in a personal way, unless he/she wishes to accept it as so.
I do understand your own fears and experiences and do not minimize them in any way.
Complain about this comment
Fear is a mind killer and we see this nearly every day. So sad.
Complain about this comment
Marcus: If you have something on-topic to say (which appears unlikely) then say it. We have read all that before (all anyone has to do is click on your user name to see the repetitions) and in the context of this thread it is irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
70. aquarizonagal:
I don't understand why, in certain quarters, certain 'freedoms' are supposed to be untrammeled by law or customs or restrictions devised by societies.
Total freedom without limits is either anarchy or nihilism, isn't it? And yet the Right in America so often seems to espouse one or the other while at the same time fearing both.
Complain about this comment
How many want true freedom?
Most only want 'freedom' for themselves. Freedom to mock and abuse others with their words. Freedom to excluded those that look different, think different or worship different from themselves.
True freedom is accepting and even celebrating what is different in the 'other.'
Do you truly want freedom?
Complain about this comment
Another of my postings referred to British government censors. We'll test them on a topic they refused to allow discussed some years ago. No profanity or reference to any other poster whatsoever. Let's see what happens.
Complain about this comment
78, bere.
"I should be okay because due to circumstances beyond my control I have become good buddies with the police chief but I won't go into that here."
Now that is a teaser and gives us room to speculate. Are you the police chief? Is your husband the police chief? Are you an ex-con paroled for good behavior? Are you an informer?
Complain about this comment
To#81 Britisish
This is all rather complicated. People here are supposed to be allowed to say just about anything they choose to say without being censored. In actual practice it really does not work that way at all. It seems that some people are given more room for self expression than others. Those who are loudest and have the most extreme things to say seem to get the most space for the saying.
I have not figured out why this is so.
Complain about this comment
25, seanspa, you must live in a quiet place, may we send your sheriff some
boarders?
As for Savage, I haven't listened to what he has said lately. Can anyone
explain what he might have said which has prompted such a high honor as to be
denied entry to the UK? When I flip through the radio in my car, I often listen
to people like him (from all parts of the political spectrum) before
dismissing them as propagandists. Usually, this takes about 30 seconds or so.
Now, I could understand that he might deserve to be singled out if he had
made some ethnic or religious slur which would prompt violence in the UK.
Has this actually occurred?
Complain about this comment
british-ish
"I don't understand why, in certain quarters, certain 'freedoms' are supposed to be untrammeled by law or customs or restrictions devised by societies.
Total freedom without limits is either anarchy or nihilism, isn't it? And yet the Right in America so often seems to espouse one or the other while at the same time fearing both."
This is just more anti-American rubbish. Wrapping up an empty platitude in a gnomic package does not produce an interesting comment - one still has a platitude.
The end of friendly relations between Britain and the US and the development of a fervent and deeply-rooted anti-Americanism in Britain should cause us all great sadness.
Surely there are more helpful and thoughtful comments to make about this than mere insults.
Complain about this comment
77 TimothyR444:
You suggest that a certain view (in this case about the events of 9/11) should not be expressed because you define it as 'anti-american".
I am asking what the logical, semantic difference is, between saying that and saying "you should not express a view against lynching because it is ant-southern". Or, it might have been in the fifties, "you should not express an admiration of Lenin because it is anti-American".
You can't logically propose limits on the freedom of expression merely though an arbitrary term like 'anti-Americanism'. (Or anti-British, or anti-Antarctican.) You end up with nonsense like "you must not advocate eating eggs because it's anti-chicken."
And I would have thought it obvious that to imply that a view or opinion should be suppressed because of fear of a greater number is not a viable, or desirable kind of restriction.
Complain about this comment
aquarizonagal - "How many want true freedom?
Most only want 'freedom' for themselves. Freedom to mock and abuse others with their words. Freedom to excluded those that look different, think different or worship different from themselves.
True freedom is accepting and even celebrating what is different in the 'other.'
Do you truly want freedom?"
Is this some sort of game? Or did I happen to arrive here on "Gnomic Saying Night, circa 1966"?
Why are these content-free "observations" repeated here?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
86. At 05:50am on 09 May 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:
"Now, I could understand that he might deserve to be singled out if he had made some ethnic or religious slur which would prompt violence in the UK. Has this actually occurred?"
Were he to repeat at least one radio rant about Muslims and the Koran I heard, in the UK in public, yes. At least it would be construed in legal terms here as incitement. As it would if it had been about Irish Catholics. Or Greek Orthodox Cypriots. Or Iranian Zoroastrians.
Complain about this comment
To#86 Gunsandreligion
I will not try to defend freedom of speech here but I will defend the right of the UK to ban anyone they chose to ban from their own country. It IS their country and they can do whatever they choose to do.
Complain about this comment
83. At 05:28am on 09 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"We'll test them on a topic they refused to allow discussed some years ago."
Then it's hardly likely to be on-topic here, then. Why not read the House Rules and save yourself the bother?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
british-ish
You suggest that a certain view (in this case about the events of 9/11) should not be expressed because you define it as 'anti-american".
I am asking what the logical, semantic difference is, between saying that and saying "you should not express a view against lynching because it is ant-southern". Or, it might have been in the fifties, "you should not express an admiration of Lenin because it is anti-American".
To make a comparison between a lynching and the attacks of 9/11 go beyond insults into tasteless and repellent assaults.
No one ius questioning anyone's right to say anything. But rubbish is rubbish - and indulging in long-winded lectures on "freedom" do not take away from that fact. Anti-American bigotry is a serious problem and must be addressed as such.
We are talking about insults. What is this nonsense? You assume that I am supposed to refrain from responding to an especially offensive and false comment about Americans without referring to anti-Americanism. That does not reflect a realistic perspective.
Complain about this comment
#83. MarcusAureliusII: "Another of my postings referred to British government censors."
If you feel so strongly about Moderators, then why not start your own blog in which you can make accusations to your heart's content - and you could post a link to it here. Even The New York Times has the motto "All the news that's fit to print" so "censorship" is alive and well beyond the shores of Great Britain. Might I suggest that you try posting your opinions in The Guardian and see what happens - that publication is funded by its readers and commercial advertising. No "British government censors" there.
Complain about this comment
Poor Nations like Afghani, Kashmiri, Pakistani, Palestine or Arab world has seen NO CHANGE in International Politics. Now SAWAT (Pakistan)area is choice of USA & UK to block CHINA & RUSSIA from reaching hot waters. USA & UK are committing political blunders by investing on old horses like Altaf HUssain, Asif Ali Zardaree, or Karazai etc. They must let common man migrate freely to USA UK or Europe. USA & UK should not let INDIA UNIT as it was before 1947. Because public in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh has long realized advantages USA & UK are earning by dividing Indian public into small pockets. This is failure of Neocolonialism prevailing after 1947 in South Asia.USA must invest in common man of PAKISTAN without blaming him as Muslim or terrorist. Now US & UK Muslims are more dedicated for survival of UK & USA. Christianity against Islam is lost game of International Society or Global Village.
Complain about this comment
91, british-ish, I haven't heard the rant. Been busy in the bit mine,
as we call it.
92, aquarigal, of course they have that right, but the issue here is not
Savage's freedom of speech, it is the right of Britlanders, as they secretly
wish to be called, to hear different points of view.
And, of course, there are all different manner of restrictions on speech.
Letting him into the country is not the same as permitting him to make
an address to Parliament.
Complain about this comment
92. At 06:16am on 09 May 2009, aquarizonagal wrote:
I will not try to defend freedom of speech here but I will defend the right of the UK to ban anyone they chose to ban from their own country. It IS their country and they can do whatever they choose to do.
Actually, the majority of Brits are not too happy about it. For one thing, it is something that is open to abuse. (Who knows what another Home Secretary might decide the criteria should be? We cannot be perennially certain that it would be only that a banned person's actions or speech elsewhere would break the law of the land if repeated within this country.)
For another, as one British commentator pointed out, there is an implicit assumption in it that we're all too stupid to be able to make up our own minds to either disregard what these people say, laugh at them, ridicule them, or ignore them, though it isn't, of course, quite as simple as that. It rankles a bit though.
(BTW: any of the usual suspects who, as I fully expect, take that last sentence as an opportunity for a rant will be treated with scorn and derision. So don't bother.)
Complain about this comment
Mods, I don't understand why my comment #90 has been referred. No racy language. No veiled meanings. No cursing.
Complain about this comment
british-ish:
"And I would have thought it obvious that to imply that a view or opinion should be suppressed because of fear of a greater number is not a viable, or desirable kind of restriction."
Such high-minded carrying on! And all to no purpose whatever!
You appear to be confusing my comments regarding the topic with some sort of attempt to restrict liberty or some other type of freedom-crushing. That is a serious confusion as it has nothing to do with posts at all, but like the proverbial dog with a bone you will not let it go.
Suit yourself. When you are willing to discuss the content, I will respond in kind.
Complain about this comment
My next posting will be a link to a story that IMO has more holes in it than a wheel of Swiss Cheese. I don't believe one word of it. As I see it, a complete fabrication with nothing substantive to back it up. Taken at face value it makes no sense at all.
Complain about this comment
94 has also been referred. I made some criticism of the relatives of the victims of the Twin Towers. Maybe "don;t speak ill of the dead" applies to surviving relatives as well.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#3: Well said,lordBeddGelert.
Most of the rest: The original issue was the ban on Savage. If this is an offence against the principle of freedom of speech, it's minor compared with the real offences against freedom of speech that are built into the way the mass media are controlled in the UK and around the world.
Complain about this comment
To#97 Shahidjan
Thank you for your writing. I think I understood most of your post. Please write more so we can have dialogue with you.
Peace to you
Complain about this comment
#87. TimothyR444: "The end of friendly relations between Britain and the US and the development of a fervent and deeply-rooted anti-Americanism in Britain should cause us all great sadness."
You really are full of it. From where do you get your information? I wonder how often and how recently you have visited the United Kingdom? There is no end of friendly relations between the two nations and there is no "deeply rooted anti-Americanism" in Britain. Like another poster, you simply make it up to suit your own arguments. Of course, you could be the other poster, abandoning his possibly deliberate poor spelling, your views being so very similar.
Complain about this comment
David Cunard:
"You really are full of it. From where do you get your information? I wonder how often and how recently you have visited the United Kingdom? There is no end of friendly relations between the two nations and there is no "deeply rooted anti-Americanism" in Britain. Like another poster, you simply make it up to suit your own arguments. Of course, you could be the other poster, abandoning his possibly deliberate poor spelling, your views being so very similar."
Another poster?
Please refrain from accusing me of masquerading as someone else. That is a lie.
And please respond to the CONTENT of my posts with thoughts and observations rather than telling me I am "full of it".
If you have thoughts to share here, I will listen to them.
Complain about this comment
101.TimothyR444:
So far, your only contribution to this debate has been to say x y and z is 'anti-American'. So presumably, the only 'free expression' is 'pro-American' as far as you are concerned. Whatever either may be.
There's no point in continuing.
Complain about this comment
98. At 06:36am on 09 May 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:
91, british-ish, I haven't heard the rant...the issue here is not
Savage's freedom of speech, it is the right of Britlanders, as they secretly
wish to be called, to hear different points of view.
No, it isn't really. I hope we don't all end up confusing censorship with what is merely a restriction on the right of certain people to enter a country. Nothing prevents us listening to that man's AM radio station (if the signal's strong enough -- I've no intention of trying to find out) or looking at his website and so on. Or buying any of his books.
Complain about this comment
#108. TimothyR444: "Please refrain from accusing me of masquerading as someone else. That is a lie."
Well, you would say that, wouldn't you? Nevertheless, I didn't accuse you "of masquerading as someone else" but rather wrote "Of course, you could be the other poster . . ." If you are, you would hardly be likely to admit it.
"And please respond to the CONTENT of my posts . . ."
But I did, asking from where you received your ill-founded opinion of Great Britain and her citizens. You have chosen not to respond.
Complain about this comment
110, british-ish, isn't it a small extension from preventing a person
from entering your country or limiting his speaking engagements to blocking
access to his web site? Or would that involve another department of government?
Complain about this comment
87. TimothyR444:
By the way: I may not be tall, nor astonishingly handsome, but I am not a gnome. Just saying.
Complain about this comment
I knew BBC wouldn't allow discussion of a topic which humilliates them no end and no it isn't the Balen Report or the Hutton Report either although both of those are damning enough. Another case closed.
Complain about this comment
To#110 Britishish
Very well said.
However, confusion is a part of this blob and does make it interesting, sometimes.
Complain about this comment
Justin, any nation that allows any group or individual the power to marginalise and silence another group or individual through the auspices of the State, is a nation that is not 'freer' than one that allows a 'thousand voices to scream'. To suggest opinions might lead to violence or abuse is simply an excuse to silence certain opinions.
In regards to Micheal Savage, I'm not aware of his opinions calling for violence or any type of abuse. I think it's ridiculus to place him on a 'banned' list becuase of his opinions. I don't like Savage becuase of his angry rants. In the U.S., he is allowed the freedom to express his opinions, I'm allowed to express mine by turning that little knob on the radio. It works quite well, he gets to vent and I get to go along none the wiser.
Complain about this comment
112. At 08:07am on 09 May 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:
110, british-ish, isn't it a small extension from preventing a person
from entering your country or limiting his speaking engagements to blocking access to his web site? Or would that involve another department of government?
It would be a fairly big extension, because of Human Rights law and the European Court of Human Rights for a start. Let's not get paranoid. Practically anyway it would involve something on the scale of The Great Firewall of China.
Anyway, if you have a dot co dot uk domain as I do hosted by a British-based ISP (though mine might actually be French, now, it's amalgamated with others so many times over the years it could be Latvian for all I know) you sign up to your ISP's conditions as regards conforming to British laws anyway and they can revoke your hosting if you breach them. (I have to abide by more or less the same rules as this site, at least as far as defamation, libel, incitement to racial hatred or violence and copyright are concerned.)
As you do in the USA I imagine. (Take a look at Google's small print conditions for their Blogger thing sometime btw -- they can shut down a blog for pretty well any reason they like, they have some extremely broad interpretations of US law there).
(I'm not saying it couldn't be done. I don't live that far from Edgware Road Tube, and some odd things happened to our phone lines and mobiles the morning of the 7/7 bombings -- after it became clear what had happened -- which did make me wonder.)
Complain about this comment
In the US you can do what you like,as long as you do what your told.
In the UK as long as you do as your told,you can do what you like.
Complain about this comment
116. At 08:39am on 09 May 2009, rodidog wrote:
"To suggest opinions might lead to violence or abuse is simply an excuse to silence certain opinions. "
But some do. Some have. A few examples:
Germany 70 years ago. Rwanda and India more recently. Les Guerres de Religion in France in the 16th century. The French Revolution. The Russian Revolution. The American War of Independence. The English Civil War. The American Civil War. Some Southern States of the USA.
Complain about this comment
116. At 08:39am on 09 May 2009, rodidog wrote:
"Justin, any nation that allows any group or individual the power to marginalise and silence another group or individual through the auspices of the State, is a nation that is not 'freer' than one that allows a 'thousand voices to scream'. "
But the USA does the same thing. On a somewhat grander scale through the 'no-fly' list. And that holds over a million names and aliases. The difference is that we know most of the names on one list, and only a handful (i.e. those people we know have been refused entry, like Yusuf Islam) on the other. I might be on that one for all I know. And if I am, I'm not going to be told why.
Complain about this comment
118. At 09:06am on 09 May 2009, ukwales wrote:
"In the UK as long as you do as your told, you can do what you like."
Shan't. So there!
Complain about this comment
Those who are happy have the real freedom.
signs of stroke
Complain about this comment
That Joyce Kaufman seems to advocate freedom with no responsibility. Many right wing Americans on this blog espouse freedom, but rarely mention the responsibility that comes along with it. Yes, you are free to choose, but you have to take responsibility for that choice - isn't that what the penal system is all about? Apologies if this sounds too Sartrean, but in my opinion, we should view freedom as freedom-responsibility (you can't have one without the other).
Savage and others have to accept that other countries and cultures may take offence to what they say. In the UK you can be locked up for inciting religious or racial hatred. Personally I don't see that as an attack on freedom, rather as a punishment on those who abuse their freedom.
The right wing seem to pick and choose what is considered to be 'right to speech'! McCarthyrite witch-hunts come to mind, not to mention the emotional fascism that followed 9/11.
Further to Happy's argument, should we consider this man's right of speech? Moreover, why are we surprised that white people stood up and left an anti-racism conference anyway? Don't they like unpleasant truths?
Complain about this comment
Justin raise an interesting point as to whether or not it protects a greater freedom to prohibit some exteme views.
I lean towards letting the idiots spout their intolerant rants and condem themselves with the ridiculousness of their "arguements". However they should feel the full force of the law if they attempt to carry out acts of violence.
An interesting UK/US comparison on travel restrictions and freedom is Cuba. Whether or not visiting Cuba is a good idea the US governement has done it's citizens thinking for them and prohibits all 300 million of them from traveling there. I'm open to correction here but I don't beleive that UK government currently can jail anyone simply for traveling to an "unapproved" destination.
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
ref #19
So instead of blaming the terrorist you blame the victims on 9/11 and 7/7.
For all the women on this board is that not the equivilent of blaming a woman for a rape?
Complain about this comment
124. At 10:23am on 09 May 2009, Young-Mr-Grace wrote:
Justin raise an interesting point as to whether or not it protects a greater freedom to prohibit some exteme views.
Which is the greater freedom: "Everything is permissible that is not forbidden" or "Everything not forbidden is permissible"?
'Karamazov's Thesis' (just to park a cat among a few sleeping pigeons): "If God did not exist, everything would be permitted."
So those who tell us there are no limits on the freedom of action (or the freedom of speech) prove God does not exist.
Complain about this comment
#119 british-ish,
I understand what you're saying and agree, but I believe you just made my point. Extrapolation can be used to marginalise and suppress an individuals opinion. No need for actual evidence when comments are drawn to extreme conclusions.
Complain about this comment
Post 102
"My next posting will be a link to a story that IMO has more holes in it than a wheel of Swiss Cheese. I don't believe one word of it. As I see it, a complete fabrication with nothing substantive to back it up. Taken at face value it makes no sense at all."
I see Commodus is starting to post links to his own posts...
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
Justin:
Another example would be this blog and the BBC HYS where moderators censor comments which do not break the House Rules
Complain about this comment
Pinko (65),
Well summarised! That clarifies the difference between opinion and incitement.
Good listening: From Our Own Correspondent
G&R 112,
- "...blocking
I received an email yeaterday, informing me that Jaqui Smith is stalking me:access to his web site? Or would that involve another department of government?"
Jacqui Smith (Home_Secretary) is now following your updates on Twitter.
A little information about Jacqui Smith:
89 followers
7 updates
following 296 people "
D Ceilar (123),
- "Further to Happy's argument, should we consider this man's [Ahmadinejad's] right of speech? Moreover, why are we surprised that white people stood up and left an anti-racism conference anyway? Don't they like unpleasant truths?"
Precisely! We're the good guys, remember?;-)
Complain about this comment
ref #130
"Further to Happy's argument, should we consider this man's [Ahmadinejad's] right of speech? Moreover, why are we surprised that white people stood up and left an anti-racism conference anyway? Don't they like unpleasant truths?"
That conference should have been the U.N racism conference, I don't agree with most of President Obama's decisions, but not attending this farce with the moral decision.
The U.N has proven itself to be anti free speech anti Jewish, anti democratic group, that allows it's workers to rape woman with impunity
They should be evicted from NY unless they expell Iran, Venezuela and other Human rights violators.
Complain about this comment
Who is most hypocritical?
Complain about this comment
The topic BBC's British government employed censors will not allow discussion of has to do with one of BBC's reporters. Can you guess which one?
Complain about this comment
Debate of political and social issues is an essential element of democracy and must, therefore, be protected at all cost. The reason that democratic societies declare certain elements "persona non grata" is not because of their opinions, but because of their calls for violence and their tendency to incite hatred and social upheaval.
The problem for those that call for moderation is how to prevent inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric designed to promote anarchy or civil unrest without infringing on one of our most cherished rights. How far do we go to protect our rights? Clearly, in some cases we abandoned them to achieve an illusion of security, should we do the same for free speech?
Complain about this comment
The incident happened a couple of years ago but it is still evidently a very sore point for BBC. The fact that BBC will not tolerate discussion of it strongly suggests to me that I've guessed "spot on" about what really happened. How and why it happened even if it happened the way they imply it did (they never actually claimed it did explicitly as far as I can tell) raises more questions about BBC than it answers and all of those questions are very embarassing to them. They have no easy answers.
Complain about this comment
125, I don't think they're blaming the victims of 7/7 so much as the world leaders who incited fear and hate of islam in their populace.
And as for the blaming women for rape thing? Yes, they still try to do that in court regularly. And the really stupid thing is that statistics have shown (yes, I know that statistics can be massaged to show pretty much anything, but they're still the best thing we have to work with) that the majority of women think that many victims ARE to blame for their rapes, be it because of how they were dressed or because they'd had a drink that day or simply because they 'led on' their rapist.
Complain about this comment
YourLordship (3 ),
- "Back in England - Yes, I know what you mean, but couldn't you say 'Britain' or even the 'United Kingdom' to get the Yanks out of their habit of saying 'England' as a catch-all for the British Isles - which is beyond annoying !!!"
And the English themselves are the worst offenders. I share your exasperation.GRRRRRRR!
Complain about this comment
132. At 12:46pm on 09 May 2009, Hesiodos wrote:
Who is most hypocritical?
"Let me be clear about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is the president of a state which has achieved a mild but relatively remarkable degree of economic independence, and which leads a principled opposition to imperialism in the region. Compared with its neighbours, it is][= prosperous and free. But the Islamic Republic also interferes in its citizens personal business by trying to enforce dress codes and the like. Its rate of judicial murder is higher even than Americas. Corruption is endemic, as it is almost everywhere, and hypocrisy bedevils the religious establishment as much as it does politicians in the West...."
Are you kidding? Can a woman wear the clothing they want without being stoned? Can you criticize the intllerant mullahs?
Moderators you are not supposed to let the Minster of Propoganda for Iran post lies.
Complain about this comment
Majik,
Is there anything alive inside your skull?
Complain about this comment
139 -
I was wondering that myself but thought it might not be ladylike to inquire, so thank you for stepping up.
Complain about this comment
An interesting point - who has the most freedom. Both countries have restrictions on their freedom of speech, many of which I find reprehensible. On principle, the very existence of this list is an example of the anti-liberal democratic ideology that seems to be percolating through the upper echelons of government.
Whatever happened to "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
Complain about this comment
Ref 138 MagicKirin
It wouldn't be the Minister of Propaganda for Iran on this page. He/she would only just be having their breakfast. Don't forget they're five to eight hours behind over there. Besides, at the weekend they'd be working on their latest book: fiction writing can provide a substantial second income. :-)
Complain about this comment
Ref 138, Magic
As a Westerner, I find the attire worn by Islamic women a reflection of medieval intolerance, but who are we to impose our views on others and demand they abandon their traditions? Have you considered that our ways are just as offensive to them as theirs are to us? Do you believe our obstinate behavior towards the Islamic world a reflection of democracy, freedom, maturity and cultural tolerance? I think not.
As for the intolerant Mullahs, they are currently being challenged by a highly educated middle class intent on rapproachment with the West and moving the country closer to European standards. It remains to be seen whether or not they succeed at the polls and achieve their goals, but the fact that there is a robust opposition in Iran is undeniable.
Incidentally, Iran is not the only country where women must wear chadors, burqas, veils and are severely punished for things that would only result in divorce in western nations. Our beloved Saudi Arabians, the ones most responsible for 9/11, do the same. Fortunately for them, the lucrative contracts they give to US corporations and their government's support of US activities in the region are enough to persuade us to forget certain things and focus instead on soft targets that had nothing to do with that dreadful event.
It seems Judas is not the only one who sold out for a few silver coins...
Complain about this comment
Savage incites violence in exactly the way other radical groups do.
His stance on immigration clearly states that he hates other minorities. Unlike like the Taliban and their outspoken hatred of "western society" he may not specifically SAY that he ADVOCATES violence to remain a trusted and "morally good" source (President of Iran could come into this as well), but how else would the state FORCE people who love the life that America offers them out of the US? Ask them nicely? Give them cookies?
The millions of Americans (mostly white) that listen to his show just shows how deep rooted and supported his views are.
In relation to Savage and other far-right people, in my view, he has the clear potential to upset minorities in countries and put unrest in our [Britian] proud multi-cultural society putting back the efforts to stop anti-radicalism. If he and others wish to prevent basic human rights and liberty in their own country, why should he be allowed to preach hatred in this country which loves moderation?
Complain about this comment
Those looking across at the Ivory Tower from the outside often make remarkably good observations, compared to the those inside the building, who consider their 'first hand' perspective superior; forgetting that access to some floors is denied to them and forgetting what the building is made from.
That includes Michael Savage, George Galloway, David Irving, John Lennon, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Geert Wilders.
Complain about this comment
Richard,
It's unclear what ypu consider those on your list to have in common.
Galloway, Lennon and (to some extent) Ahmadinejad speak truth to power. Irving and Wilders are delusional.
Complain about this comment
Ref 123 dceilar
"Apologies if this sounds too Sartrean, but in my opinion, we should view freedom as freedom-responsibility (you can't have one without the other)."
I do agree with you. Please allow me to state it in another way. A people cannot sustain their freedoms and liberty without exercising personal responsibility.
A society starts out with complete freedom of speech.
A person in that society yells "Fire" in a crowded theater knowing it will cause panic by exercising their complete freedom of speech. People panic and are injured, some die as a result of the person exercising their freedom of speech in an irresponsible manner.
The society enacts a law banning that particular freedom of speech, thus ending complete freedom of speech. Each similar, irresponsible abuse of the remaining freedom of speech is met by another law enacted to place more limits on freedom of speech for the protection of society , until there is no freedom of speech because personal responsibility and good judgement has consumed that freedom. The irresponsible acts of the people destroyed their own freedom.
Our "free" society can only exist if we act responsibly.
Complain about this comment
Ref:146 Hesiodos
Ha Yes! I did hesitate when placing them in the same sentence, but I'm preparing an Indian dinner at the same time, the hard way, the purist variety. Two things at the same time and all that....
I don't know that Irving and Wilders are delusional - I haven't heard them. That's my point. Another reason I decided to leave them in the same sentence (apart from the seeds and powders I've got everywhere) is that a 'reputation' generally precedes them. I suspect there may be many in Canada who believe there's some extremist 'Brit' who is delusional, a shock jock, and needs to be banned. I may have just chosen a bad example, if someone is going to post and say everyone in Canada knows the real Galloway, but the point is valid nevertheless. So, to answer your question, what they have in common is an 'image' largely provided by third parties or governments.
Complain about this comment
5.00pm Radio4. Just heard that over 250 people have registered as candidates for the forthcoming elections for President of Iran.
That sounds like democracy!
Complain about this comment
Ref 147
Sorry. I must correct an error in my post.
"...until there is no freedom of speech because personal responsibility and good judgement has consumed that freedom."
Should read:
...until there is no freedom of speech because personal irresponsiblity and poor judgement has consumed that freedom.
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
Ref# 146 Hesiodos
On the truth scale, I don't think Ahmaddinejad is any different to most European leaders, and arguably slightly better. I sense from some of his speeches, that his opinion was still developing, and his fault is that he's spoken out slightly prematurely, testing opinion, therefore unwisely.
Mohammad Khatami was the star. In different circumstances, he may have risen to join the list of the best world leaders.
Complain about this comment
Regarding reputations, images, and sensationalism:
I had read about that guy Russell Brand and the flak over the "Fawlty Towers" actor and assumed that Mr. Brand must be a terrible person. Then I heard him interviewed on "Fresh Air" on NPR and he sounded like such a nice, intelligent, personable young man. His explanation of the answering machine messages sounded very reasonable. So who to believe?
This is why I went to Youtube and listened to Michael Savage instead of forming my opinion based on what others are saying about him. He is truly delusional and vicious. There is nothing personable or intelligent about him. He may be kind to animals and love his children (if he has any) for all I know but he seems to hate everyone else.
If everything relating to him were taken down from Youtube in the interests of removing hate speech, I would not have known that he really is a nasty piece of work and might have felt sorry for him. Someone earlier on this thread said it's important to know who these people are and what they are saying instead of forcing them to fester underground. I'd have to agree with that.
Complain about this comment
Regarding Irving, I am torn. On the one hand, I tend to agree with Deb Lipstadt, who was herself sued by Irving for libel, when she said, "I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth," (this upon news of Irving's conviction in Austria).
On the other hand, Irving became just a higbrow version of Zundel. But the "highbrow" bit is significant, if only because it places Irving's work in the grande monde of serious scholarship, where it gets a rigorous critical assessment. And critically assessed it was.
But the prison term sends a clearer message, and to a different audience. Becoming an academic pariah is one thing, and has meaning and significance with eggheads the world over. Being found guilty in a public court of lying about historical events, and being as a consequence sent to jail as a hate propagandist, is another. It sends a message far beyond the narrow group of scholars, and dramatically defines the border line where the harsh powers of the state delimit individual freedom.
Given Austria's history, it is not surprising that there is a sensitivity regarding the holocaust, and that this sensitivity is manifest in harsh legal restrictions on freedom of speech. It is also not surprising that such restrictions are much different in the US, or elsewhere, where direct responsibility for those terrible events is not an historical experience.
Yours,
Pinko
Complain about this comment
I have never been to any part of UK only the citizens there can judge their own level of freedoms.I am proud of my freedoms as a American and disappointed by attempts to diminish them and fought them.Speaking of freedoms and rights.Every state has a State National Guard it is like a military for each state and can only be deployed with consent of Governor.Michigan's National guard helps protect our international border as does others states,especially in times of war.Anyone disappointed that California and other Sunbelt states want Obama and federal government to pay for their state part in protecting it's state borders.Many Border state pay for it out of their own funds including my state.Do you think California is right or is this just another bill they are trying to get federal government to pay for them.
Complain about this comment
british-ish, I would not be defensive in the least about your gnomic heritage.
Gnomes are high achievers. Just look at the Travelocity Gnome.
On the other hand, they sometimes go bad, as, for example, here.
Complain about this comment
ref #143
So we are back to the moral equvilency argument again.
Sorry most Iranain would like to be rid of these Islamic thugs posing as relgous leaders.
The most enlightened govt in recent memory for Iran was the Shahs.
Complain about this comment
I can understand why some dangerous demagogues might not be allowed into a country especially after acts of terrorism have killed so many. But Michael Savage is not nearly as important as that. Neither, for that matter, is G. Wilders. There are people who say controversial things but ultimately are harmless. Banning them just because you disagree with their statements -- which may also evolve over time -- not only encroaches on fundamental free speech, it also creates greater tension, escalating hostility...
Not only do the "banned" get more PR, they become even more popular with their supporters.
I suspect that I am not the only person who believes J. Smith has exhibited poor judgement in this matter, as well as others.
Savage is well capable of organising a backlash, such as a boycott or somesuch, that the UK does not need. Even lots of people who do not share his views will jump at the opportunity to revisit "America's victory over English tyranny" etc. etc. And where exactly does that lead to?
Surely people in the Brown government understand that having a pretty strong media celebrity from the US send back gushing reports about the UK would be good for British business?
And the opposite is also true?
I don't like someone like Howard Stern, but I would never ban him from visiting a country if I had a say in it!
How can you expect to change someone's views if you do not show them a better way of being?
I find all of this extremely puzzling. It does not fit my understanding of J.S. Mill's legacy, that I used to believe did indeed inform the very essence of the UK.
Complain about this comment
I don't know why the link doesn't work, in post #155, but british-ish, if
you google for "creepy gnome terrorises(sic) town" you'll see that mental
health is a priority, even for "the little guy."
There is, however, one big advantage that the gnomic community possesses:
their medical bills are reduced, because everything is cut in half!
Their pills are cut in half, their hospital beds are half-sized, and,
well, you get the idea.
Complain about this comment
Who has more freedom? Wrong question! Whose citizens choose to live voluntarily in the other country for the rest of their lives when given a choice (the reason why being unimportant.) The answer seems clear enough. The tide seems headed West. There may be a counter-trickle East but you'd hardly know it. Most American ex-pats living in the UK are there temporarily on temporary work assignments or attending school, not relocating permanently.
Complain about this comment
158, guns -
I was able to get to the creepy gnome by deleting the br thing. I'm getting much better at this. I didn't know gnomes had pointy heads. What's that all about?
Complain about this comment
This debate falls short of the standards of this blog. All of my favorite posters are off skirmishing with trolls.
Justin, I think the question was too broad.
Complain about this comment
133 MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"The topic BBC's British government employed censors will not allow discussion of has to do with one of BBC's reporters. Can you guess which one?"
OK - hands up anyone who gives a tuppenny damn.
Anyone?
At all?
Except for Marcus?
Complain about this comment
139 Hesiodos wrote:
"Majik,
Is there anything alive inside your skull?"
It's quite simple
Magic is forever proving that he can't write.
Now he's proved that he can't read.
Complain about this comment
160, bere, about the pointy heads...
I'm going to have to get back to you on that. Doing a little research I
have found that there are 25 million of them in Germany, according
to Wikipedia. This is the untold immigration story of our time. How is it
that we hear so little about their treatment? And, what are they growing
in those gardens?
Here is the link to the Wikipedia article, if it makes it through, otherwise
you can just go to wikipedia.org and type in "gnome."
Complain about this comment
161. At 6:39pm on 09 May 2009, AndyPost wrote:
This debate falls short of the standards of this blog. All of my favorite posters are off skirmishing with trolls.
No, they've just gone gnome. It's dinner time.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ref 156, Magic
"Sorry most Iranain would like to be rid of these Islamic thugs posing as relgous leaders.
The most enlightened govt in recent memory for Iran was the Shahs."
Hopefully, it is just a punctuation problem because I am truly amazed anyone would be saddened by the fact that a new generation of Iranians seem eager to rid themselves of the religious zealots that have oppressed them during the past several decades.
Regarding the Shah, your statement is only true if his "enlightnment" is synonymous to acquiescence to the USA and Europe, which he obligingly did after the premature and unwise removal of Mossadegh from power. Needless to say, our overt involvement in the internal affairs of countries thousands of miles away was done with freedom and democracy in mind...
That's the curse of having large oil reserves.
Complain about this comment
ref #163
Hey Johhny Boy I can read; I can also analyze. Something you obviously can't.
But then the European left are among the most insular ignorant groups in western civilization.
Complain about this comment
164, guns -
Oh, I see, the pointy part is the hat. The photo on the Sun site was so fuzzy that it made the pointy part look like it was just part of the head. How do they know it's a gnome and not a cone-head?
165, british -
Gone gnome! That is an example of why I continue to read this blog. Were it not for bits like that it would just be too depressing and annoying.
Complain about this comment
To#154 Faeyth
You have raised an interesting point. Michigan has different issues than the states that border Mexico. The costs of policing this border are high and most of Arizona's National Guard, for example, have been deployed repeatedly to Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are very vocal elements in this country terrified of a 'hoard' of Mexicans crossing our borders. They want the borders sealed and policed. Well, someone has to pay for this and the "Sunbelt" states alone do not have the money for it.
Complain about this comment
To#161 Andypost
Any topic on this blog that does not directly concern the Middle East issue will be too "broad."
Complain about this comment
#168. MagicKirin: "the European left are among the most insular ignorant groups in western civilization."
If you're going to speak in such broad terms, I suppose that could also be said of the American right.
Complain about this comment
168. At 7:08pm on 09 May 2009, MagicKirin wrote: ""the European left are among the most insular ignorant groups in western civilization."
[Sigh] Europe is a continent. What's that got to do with this topic anyway?
Complain about this comment
Ref 170 aquarizonagal
Alert!! Alert!!
Very reliable sources inform us that hundreds, if not thousands of Canadians armed with Loonies and Toonies will be crossing the border at Detroit tonight! A call has gone out for Red Wing and Stanley Cup t-shirt vendors to establish a nearly-solid wall of kiosks around Fortress Joe Lewis to dis-arm this, mostly orderly, invasion force of their Loonies and Toonies. Further dis-armament will take place inside the fortress, as well as many restaurants and watering-places throughout the city.
Officials are prepared to meet this invasion force with a strong element of thoroughly trained parking attendants and pan-handlers. Citizens are asked to remain as calm as possible. The National Treat Alert System has been updated to red and white.
Complain about this comment
To#174 Publiusdetroit
What!
Has the National Guard been called out? How will you ever cope with this 'invasion' otherwise?
Complain about this comment
To#174
Addendum
Just who is expected to pay for this? "Not I, said the little red hen!"
Complain about this comment
164. At 6:57pm on 09 May 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:
"I have found that there are 25 million of them in Germany, according
to Wikipedia. This is the untold immigration story of our time. How is it
that we hear so little about their treatment?"
Their freedom of movement is unfairly restricted. The Squirrels are taking up their cause. Expect to here more of the Gnome Rule Party soon. We think it will go international quite quickly.
(Gnome Rule for Iran!)
Complain about this comment
I am all for the banned list of folk banned entry.
I regard this as my "human right" to have a provocative lunatic fringe entering the country.
By excluding them, we prevent some weirdoes taking on-board their talk, and so endangering the country and the residents of Britain.
If we had not abandoned most censorship in the 80's, and had continued to exclude gratuitous violence and promiscuity from our screens large and small, violent crime and sexual exploitation would not be the blight it is today.
Complain about this comment
177, british -
Are the Gnomes in favor of universal health coverage? If so, send some here to the U.S. as we are in desperate need of a third party with common sense and pointy hats.
Complain about this comment
As the BBC's North American editor it would behoove you to understand the USA and its laws better. The prohibition is against shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or other such public space, not merely in a room. A theater is a public space, usually crowded, and dark, where such a cry would likely cause panic. Mr. Webb, feel free to shout "Fire!" or whatever else you care to in your hotel room. It certainly would be a better use of your "talents" than these idiotic blogs.
Complain about this comment
Ref 175 aquarizonagal
"Has the National Guard been called out? How will you ever cope with this 'invasion' otherwise?"
The Commanding General of The Michigan National Guard informs us that previous invasions by these Canadian forces soon peters out once the supply of Blue and Canadian lagers have been consumed (part of the peaceful dis-armament process). The RCMP (Reeling Canadians Mainly Poluted) retire from the arena of battle, back across the bridge and through the tunnel, unmolested and somewhat peacefully, in ones and twos throughout the wee hours.
A very small portion of tax-payer funds are used during these encounters. Conversion of the Loonies and Toonies, obtained through dis-armament, into Grants and Franklins far exceed any tax funds used to meet the invasion.
It should also be noted there are seldom any serious casualties on either side. Distinguishing friend from foe becomes difficult once dialect becomes slurred, since both invaders and invadees are wearing the same color jerseys.
Complain about this comment
To#177 Britisish
Your valiant defense of freedom for immigrants is duly noted.
Complain about this comment
To#181 Publiusdetroit
I am a firm believer in "peaceful dis-armament" and especially approve of the method you have outlined.
Complain about this comment
The question about who is freer, the US or the UK is rather like comparing apples and oranges. Freedom anywhere is mostly an illusion in which we all collude until one of us, personally, feels that our own 'rights' have been violated. At that time, we learn just how 'free' we actually are.
Complain about this comment
181, pub: "Reeling Canadians Mainly Polluted"
Oh, how I laughed! You and british are neck-and-neck in the wit department today. Do you also consult the squirrels?
Complain about this comment
ref #167
When the Shah was running Iran, women can dress as they wish. The country was wise enough to have normalized relations with Israel.
The ability to look beyond the fraud of the Nbaka made Iran a more welcome member in the community of nations.
Even Sadat needed time before he realized that the deominizing of Israel did nothing for Arabs.
But the current leader in the gulf are too cowardly and in the case of Iran too racist to accept a non Moslem state.
Khomehni was a pig!
Complain about this comment
# 172 David_Cunard wrote:
"#168. MagicKirin: "the European left are among the most insular ignorant groups in western civilization."
If you're going to speak in such broad terms, I suppose that could also be said of the American right."
And, in particular, of the representative of the American right whom you are quoting.
Complain about this comment
Ref 180
Here (for one) is an example of irresponsible use of free speech:
"It certainly would be a better use of your "talents" than these idiotic blogs."
The post expresses a viable point of view until the above quoted line was injected at the end of the statement.
Is there a fine, social purpose to inciting a defensive response that may be even more invidious? The, "I can be more vindictive than you." school of asocial communication. Or is the poster only displaying aggression for an inner need to be seen as overly aggresive and intimidate the aggrieved not to reply? The, "I'll box your ears if you dare talk back to me." school of asocial communication.
Complain about this comment
34. At 01:50am on 09 May 2009, aquarizonagal wrote:
"It is my opinion that Americans, as a rule, are very naive about the powers of policemen, not only in the US, but especially in other countries. "
Americans are very naive about a lot of things - it is one of the ways we exercise our freedom.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
# 168 MagicKirin wrote:
"ref #163/Hey Johhny Boy I can read; I can also analyze. Something you obviously can't./But then the European left are among the most insular ignorant groups in western civilization."
Course you can, Magic.
Except that in MagicWorld, 'read' and 'analyze' obviously mean 'ignore anything that doesn't fit in with my overweening prejudices'.
So let's just examine your skill at reading and analysis.
Hesiodos at #132 had a quotation concerning Iran. It outlined some of its achievements. It was also extremely critical of Iran, as follows: "But the Islamic Republic also interferes in its citizens personal business by trying to enforce dress codes and the like. Its rate of judicial murder is higher even than Americas. Corruption is endemic, as it is almost everywhere, and hypocrisy bedevils the religious establishment as much as it does politicians in the West...."
And your response, at #138? "Are you kidding? Can a woman wear the clothing they want without being stoned? Can you criticize the intllerant [sic] mullahs?/Moderators you are not supposed to let the Minster [sic] of Propoganda [sic] for Iran post lies."
So you ignore what the posting said, and the fact that it was highly critical of the Iranian government, and referred in particular to its imposition of dress codes.
Ergo, you can neither read, write, analyse, nor spell. Just smear anyone who says or thinks anything you disagree with. You've called me a racist - which was a lie. You previously claimed that I post under than more than one name - a blatant unfounded lie. You've called Hesiodos a liar and propagandist. And you hurl accusations of 'hater' and 'anti-Semitic' around like confetti.
As someone once said to Senator McCarthy - 'Have you no shame? Have you no decency?'
QED
Complain about this comment
Newjock (178), Huh?
Complain about this comment
Ref 185 bere54
I do consult the squirrels, but I also consult the opposum that nests in a tool drawer under the workbench in my garage. He always wears a wry grin when I open the drawer to retrieve a tool and we discourse.
I've tried evicting him through use of harsh words and aggression before realizing he is quite an amusing fellow if one is patient to his sleepy, lumbering style of humor. Now he just makes me laugh and smile whenever we meet.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Is naivete actually a freedom? Ignorance of a law does not preclude punishment if one should inadvertently break that law. Some have learned this to their sorrow, especially when visiting in unfamiliar places.
Complain about this comment
61. At 03:40am on 09 May 2009, Via-Media wrote:
"Thanks, I knew I knew the name from somewhere. Yes, you are right- the Phelps family are in a totally different category. The right of free speech only extends to the point that your speech infringes on the rights (and privacy) of others.
I actually feel sorry for people like that. They are so blinded by their misguided beliefs that the miss the real message of the faith they so horribly corrupt (but their kind is not limited to the Christian faith, or only to those of any faith at all. Separate debate, I think.)"
Very good post -
The Phelps group is free to make themselves so obnoxious that their point of view looses ground in the marketplace of ideas. That is how a democracy works, and how a democracy protects itself and improves itself. In these days, churches thrive or fail in the same way. I am reminded of the anti-government radicals that bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City - their movement essentially collapsed as a result.
Democracies that restrict public speech risk the tyranny of ideas, at the least.
Being obnoxious has it's own rewards. I don't know Mr savage's work, but one in thirty is about right for such an interest group; you must consider that of that number most are interested for the entertaiment value only, and would not seriously entertain the content beyond some drunken shouting.....
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
You can laugh about Northern Border but they have the problems.People passing back and forth illegally,drugs,poaching,etc...You have 2 rivers you can swim across not to mention a train track from Detroit to Windsor you can walk through.It's just not as violent.And there are many drug bust done on both sides of Northern Border the difference is that Canadian Government does a better job than Mexico and sometimes the U.S. ever try drinking their as a teen.
Complain about this comment
159, Actually Marcus, the country with the largest number of British ex-pats in the world is, I understand, Spain. Not that many Brits move to America, especially not to retire because the lack of free health care can be a real pain if you're not rich.
Complain about this comment
I have a really hard time with the idea that the Phelps family's right to express their hate outweighs the pain and anguish they cause to the mourners at funerals. Are the mourners supposed to be consoled by the thought that the Phelpses are losing ground in the marketplace of ideas?
I at least am consoled by videos I've seen of motorcycle gangs interposing themselves between the Phelps crowd and the funerals, and raising huge banners to block the view. Is this infringing on the free speech rights of these really despicable people? Too damned bad.
Complain about this comment
Ref 193
This posting is textbook irresponsible free speech. No self-control; nor inner, rational conscience. Tell'em you're the best. Show'em you got guts and ain't afraid of anyone. Make'em all fear and hate you. The type of extreme aggression, heavily laced with belittling nicknames and phrases that insulates a fragile, defeated spirit.
The kind of asocial communication skills learned in the school of, "Stop your crying and get back up here and show you're a man or I'll haul you up and smack you down again. Don't ever let anybody step on you. You squash them. You hear me? I'll smack you around good if I ever see you being a coward. Now get out of my sight!".
Complain about this comment
To#198 Bere54
A funeral is a personal and private thing, a place for grief and sorrow. It is not a political event or a place for "free speech" unless one is totally heartless and 'godless,' as well.
These people are despicable and worse. The grieving are to be comforted not tormented.
Complain about this comment
The ban on Michael Savage was a ridiculous piece of diversionary politics by a pitiful Home secretary in a dying administration. If you look beyond the story Jacqui Smith has been on a slow self-destruct for a while now, and the publishing of this banned list was a sad attempt to show the public that she was in control of security.
Why does the list even need to be published? Do other countries make a big show of their "undesirables"? I don't know.
I believe the US hate preacher and the shock-jock were just there to show the politically-correct "balance" necessary to counter the raft of Muslim hate preachers who are justifiably banned fromt the UK.
Any country has the right to ban any foreign citizen it considers to be undesirable, but publishing the list is just playing politics.
My opinion is that Savage probably shouldn't be banned, just as I did not feel that Geert Wilders should have been banned. The publicity just adds fuel to their extremism, and gives them a legitimacy that they crave. Let them speak and then mock and deride them for their views. If Savage had come to Britain would he have been big news? I doubt it. He may have got an column in the Daily Mail, but that would just be preaching to the converted.
Justin's link to the Sun (proprietor R. Murdoch!) is surprisingly representative of the general feeling of the British people. Both the left and the right now seem to feel that there is way too much government interference in everyday life.
Regarding freedom, it is impossible to say whether the UK or USA is more "free" than the other, although the UK has seen a massive increase in govt snooping around people's everyday lives - the "nanny state".
Both countries have positives and negatives .... yes the Uk has lots of CCTV cameras, but in the USA the patriot act allows the government to do all sorts of things (read your mail or email etc).
Many UK laws restricting freedom of speech in broadcasting are more to do with preventing incitement to hatred or violence, or simply protecting people from charlatans.
Big difference is the UK does not tout its freedom by advertising itself as the Land of the Free!
Complain about this comment
Was Michael Savage going to come to the UK?
Complain about this comment
Regarding freedom of speech in broadcasting I believe that the UK has too much censorship, and the US too little.
In the US hate speech is allowed in the name of free speech, and in the UK so much is controlled that the lunatics get prestige and credibility in the eyes of theirfollowers by being "banned" and their polemic becomes more edgy and rebellious, hidden as it is from the scrutiny of public opinion.
A happy medium based on common sense would be nice. It would take the hateful dogmatists off the air, but it would allow controversial opinions to be voiced, and then questionned.
The problem is that the definition of "offensive" has become subjective, so that anyone who claims to be offended by something can try to suppress it, even if to an impartial observer it does notappear offensive. This is the curse of political correctness - it leaves no room for common sense.
Complain about this comment
Ref 168, Magic
"But then the European left are among the most insular ignorant groups in western civilization."
Hopefully our European hosts realize that most Americans don't share your opinion. Comments like yours reflect negatively on our country and reinforce the old perception of the "ugly American".
Your generalization was uncalled for and a bit rich, to say the least, considering the tendency of Europeans to travel, speak more than one language, and the large percentage that graduate from college and get a degree while we rank Nr. 15 out of 29 developed nations in that arena. Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, and there is nothing wrong with having an opposing view on most issues, but why do you resort to immature insults like this which make us all look like high school bullies?
Complain about this comment
Ref 196 faeyth
Swimming either the Detroit River or the St. Clair River requires a very strong swimmer. The currents are treacherous and the freighters suck you down like a gold-fish at a frat party if they get even close to the swimmer. There size disquise just how incredibly fast they are sailing in the channels. Check the local papers for ships passing before attempting the feat. I swam the across the St. Clair River once with the intent of swimming back. It was exhilerating, but I had a friend come over and pick me up to drive me back.
Go ahead and try crossing through the CN rail tunnels. Many have. Some live to tell about the trek to their escorts on their way back across the border. Some drug traffic back and forth. Mostly personal use quantities. Canada has enough places to land drugs upon the ocean coasts just like the drug-runners do delivering to the States. Some illegal immigrants, mostly trying to get to Canada because they are treated better there.
One can get away with fishing in Canadian waters without a license, or vice versa. Don't get caught, though. Fines are real stiff.
Complain about this comment
Here's an idea to get rid of the trolls .... follow Bilbo Baggins lead in the Hobbit and keep them talking/ranting until dawn. As the sun's rays hit them they turn to stone.
All we need to know is which time zone they're in!
And as skirmishing with trolls is rather depressing and debilitating (I've pretty much given it up to be honest) I suggest we draw up a rota and take turns. Simon21 - you go first....
Complain about this comment
Well, do we get to talk about Alan Johnston or don't we?
Complain about this comment
Stu (2010,
- "The ban on Michael Savage was a ridiculous piece of diversionary politics by a pitiful Home secretary in a dying administration. If you look beyond the story Jacqui Smith has been on a slow self-destruct for a while now, and the publishing of this banned list was a sad attempt to show the public that she was in control of security."
Jacqui is stalking me![Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] is now following your updates on Twitter.
A little information about Jacqui Smith:
89 followers
7 updates
following 296 people
You may follow Jacqui Smith as well by clicking on the "follow" button on their profile.You may also block Jacqui Smith if you don't want them to follow you.
"
How sad can our present government get? I ask you.
Pretty sad, it seems
Don't forget to Smile
Complain about this comment
I think what is most interesting about the Balen report is not how BBC used license fee payer money to fight legally in court to block publication of an investigation which almost certainly damns it for its anti-Israeli bias but how the British public sits back and simply ignores the whole thing indifferent to making an issue of it. But that is an expected reaction by a population successfully cowed by by an oligarchic dictatorship. It's small potatos compared to how indifferent it is to being railroaded into the EUSSR superstate. You don't get freedom handed to you on a platter, you have to be willing to fight for it. That's one critical difference between passive Europe and active America.
Complain about this comment
To#203
Well said!
I think it is better to have all of these speakers out in the open where they can be scrutinized rather then have them hiding away and festering. They gather power when they can cry 'censorship and martyrdom.' Rather, let people see and hear them as they are.
Nothing is more enticing than that which is censored or banned but once we see or hear this material it often just seems boring.
Complain about this comment
Stu, for laughs, and then try a Giggle on Home_Secretary
;-0
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
Anyone who isn't anti-Israel is biased.
Complain about this comment
#197. Kittle: "the country with the largest number of British ex-pats in the world is, I understand, Spain. Not that many Brits move to America, especially not to retire because the lack of free health care can be a real pain if you're not rich."
What is the Spanish healthcare system like? Those who emigrate to another country are not considered "normally resident" in the UK and, except for emergency treatment, are no longer entitled to care by the NHS, no matter how long they had previously lived in Britain or the amount of NI stamps they paid. One of the "improvements" made by "New" Labour.
Complain about this comment
And he's serious!
Complain about this comment
Fighting back?
;-)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
214 -
Was he smiling inappropriately or was it what he had for lunch? (You know, they always say about newborns: "Oh she's not smiling, it's just gas.")
Complain about this comment
Ref 209
A little more refined approach. Needs a little more work to become responsible free speech simply by dropping the belittling nicknames to assert aggression and prompt invidious reaction.
Freedom is a possible result after gaining liberty. Sometimes liberty requires extra-ordinary aggression to obtain. Most often it is obtained through demonstrating responsibility and the ability to make sound decisions. Irresponsibility threatens and erodes the freedoms gained through liberty. The Thirteen Colonies first had to fight to gain their liberty before they were ever able to establish the Bill of Rights which is often confused with granting unfettered freedom.
Complain about this comment
Or ignorant.
Complain about this comment
Or both
Complain about this comment
Well, this may be a red letter day. BBC might just be willing to finally allow discussion of the disappearance from public of Alan Johnston, their correspondent in Gaza.
The first question is why was he still there? He and BBC knew what danger he was in, he said so in his interview. Every other international reporter had left because it had become much too dangerous to stay there. He only had 16 days before he was supposed to leave anyway. The nature of kidnappings had changed drastically since some extreme jihadists had come to town. There was nothing of unusual note happening in Gaza that hadn't been told a thousand times in a thousand ways before so there was no new urgent story to tell. Were he and BBC both reckless in having him stay for no legitimate journalistic reason or was there another purpose for him being there? That is the first question and however the right answer works out to be, it casts a very dim shadow on BBC's management. Reckless disregard for the value of human life or nefarious purpose? Which is it?
Complain about this comment
The next interesting thing was the public reaction. BBC said he was taken hostage by "a terrorist group." This is the first and only time I ever recall BBC using the term "terrorist" in any way without ascribing it to someone else such as "President Bush's so called war on terror."
Then there was a statement by his father pleading for his release. His father called him "a friend of the Palestinian People." Was that true even in part? What kind of an objective journalist is a friend of the people he is supposed to be reporting about? How can a reporter do his job professionally if he feels any emotional attachment one way or another to the subject of his reports? They will inevitably be skewed. Many people felt his reports were skewed, including me.
Complain about this comment
I thought the discussion was regarding free speech and freedom in the UK and the US.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Then there was his own account of the nature of his captivity. He was asked what food he wanted and it was brought to him. He was given a radio to "keep his spirits up." Anyone every hear of kidnappers treating their victims like that? These are his words. A very strange story.
It also seems odd that in the most densely populated place on earth, a foreigner who had at least some noteriety would go unrecognized, that someone would not have taken any notice of him or anything suspicious leading to finding him at all.
In the end, as I understood it, some sort of negotiations between the "kidnappers" and Hamas led to his release.
Complain about this comment
So, was he actually kidnapped at all or did he have some complicity in this whole incident? Was he in fact just hanging out with his pals out of public view? Was he creating this incident to bring the world's focus back to his Palestinian friends because they had fallen far off the front pages of the news behind far more newsworthy stories? Were his kidnappers terrorists who negotiated with Hamas or a branch of Hamas itself? That there is no factual evidence to support Johnston's story is bad enough. That BBC would not talk about it or even allow discussion of it on its blog sites for two years is very suspicious. All this and that his demeanor has been at all times entirely inconsistent with what he said happened to him convinces me that the entire thing was probably a fabrication made from whole cloth. As of now, I don't believe one word of it.
Complain about this comment
213. Until you asked, I had no idea. So I've had a look around. They have socialised healthcare, as we do in the UK, so long as you are or have been contributing to the Spanish social security system. People drawing on a UK state pension (or, I think, any EU state pension) can also get treatment for free after filling out a selection of forms that basically amount to the cost of treatment being forwarded to the NHS. By all accounts the standard of care is fairly high although they lack somewhat in convalesence and palliative care, as those are usually handled by the family due to Spanish cultural mores.
Plus there's always some people who remain registered at a UK address, usually of a family member so that they can come back to the UK for long-term treatment.
The big draw, of course, is the excellent weather combined with the relatively low cost of living which can stretch those meagre UK pesions that much further.
Complain about this comment
In the video link I posted above that was referred to the moderators, Johnston gives about a one hour talk about his experience. I constantly had the impression listening to him and watching him that he was reciting a carefully memorized written down story about someone else. He seemed so detached and emotionless about it that I'd never would have suspected he was supposedly talking about something that had happened to him, something terrifying, life altering, a nightmare of an ordeal if he hadn't said so. This only adds to my suspicions that whatever happened, it did not happen the way he said it did.
BTW, you can find the link and watch it for yourself doing a Google search. Draw your own conclusions.
Complain about this comment
Ref 226 MarcusAureliusII
"That BBC would not talk about it or even allow discussion of it on its blog sites for two years is very suspicious."
Is this the same Alan Johnston to whom you refer? Monday, 29 October 2007 found him saying quite a bit about his experience held captive in Gaza in this BBC report.
Here he is quoted in a report dated Saturday, 7 Jul 2007 as he arrived home 4 days after his release from captivity.
Responsible free speech is based on fact; irresponsible free speech is based on fabrications.
Complain about this comment
During the time of the incident when my coments were not allowed, I wrote to BBC's editors by e-mail. They said they didn't want any discussion of it in public because that could endanger Johnston's life. That sounded reasonable and plausible at the time. But then when the incident was over and the matter was still not allowed to be discussed, I wrote them many times with no response. After more than a year went by after it was over and it was still off limits what other conclusion could I draw except that BBC had something to hide. The whole story just didn't add up. The pieces didn't fit. Not the way they were supposed to. What other skeletons does BBC have in its closet? Nothing would surprise me.
publiusdetroit
It's been two years but I distinctly remember that he was back home in Scotland shortly after his reappearance, he was with his family, he looked tired but otherwise fine and happy, hardly what you'd expect after the kind of ordeal he went through. I recall it as being the next day but I'm not saying it couldn't have been 3 days later. I'd have to check the reports to find out if it mattered but I don't see that it would change the gist of anything if it was 3 days instead of 1 day.
Responsible free speech is open to discussion whether opinions stand up to the test of facts is often what determines whether or not people believe something. When something is not open to any discussion by those who both assert a story and have the power to squelch discussion of it, the conclusion is that there must be a good reason for it, something to hide. That's been my conclusion so far.
Complain about this comment
Ref 228 MarcusAureliusII
" He seemed so detached and emotionless about it that I'd never would have suspected he was supposedly talking about something that had happened to him, something terrifying, life altering, a nightmare of an ordeal if he hadn't said so."
I have listened to my father and many other disabled veterans tell the story of their life-altering, terrifying, disfiguring combat ordeal without much sign of emotion. I do volunteer work with disable vets, and so have heard a large number of tragic stories.
Let them tell the stories about friends killed and wounded in combat and it turns into a heart-wrenching, very emotional tale that often they cannot finish through there tears and sobs.
It is difficult to tell what is behind the eyes of someone telling of their truamatic experience. The story is etched deep inside of them, and they read from those horrible etchings.
Complain about this comment
publius detroit
It is implausible that there would be no visible signs of psychological scars at all, not initially, not since. You'd have to be a machine, not a human being for there to be no visible reaction whatsoever....unless nothing traumatic had happened. I've given you much more than that to show why for me the whole story doesn't add up. Back to square one, why was he still there at all especially when both BBC and he knew he was in dire danger, everyone else had left because of it, there was nothing newsworthy happening, and he was supposed to leave in 16 days accoreding to his work schedule anyway? Are Brits such slaves to schedules (i mean shedules) that they would needlessly put someone's life at risk to stick to one so unimportant? Makes no sense the way he tells it.
Complain about this comment
Ref 230 MarcusAureliusII
"Responsible free speech is open to discussion whether opinions stand up to the test of facts is often what determines whether or not people believe something. When something is not open to any discussion by those who both assert a story and have the power to squelch discussion of it, the conclusion is that there must be a good reason for it, something to hide. That's been my conclusion so far."
Here we find accord between you and I. Without facts there is only speculation. Any number of reasons from the innocent to the bizarre. The mother of my child, also my ex-wife, refuses to talk about her ordeal in the Persian Gulf War. She was an ICU nurse. Saw way too much blood, guts, and death. It's killing her...slowly. She aggresively refuses all help. (Big reason we are divorced)
I deal alot with PTSD veterans from wars spanning from the present to WWII. One of the keys to helping them come to terms with the trauma that haunts them is to get them to talk about their experiences. There is no way to force them to face past events. One can only open the door that will bring them a understanding the flashbacks and nightmares and shame they feel for surviving. It's an emotionally draining, painful process.
There must be some reason Johnston stayed in the danger zone. Be it the chance to be on the ground when the next news-worthy event took place and scoop the other reporters; or because he was getting in close to a source and wanted to make contact; or he was some kind of operative. So many possibilities.
A story like this is like a computer program. There's always a back door to enter and get inside. If you're very interested in what had taken place, there is a back door into sources that can answer the questions. Never easy to find. But it can be done.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Marcus
It's frustrating when getting into a good conversation with someone, as we are having, and the mods are changing shifts or having lunch. So I'm just going to ramble on until our posts start clearing.
The Korean War vets are the hardest to reach. Their's is the forgotten war. A war without end still lingering in a stand-off truce. The war that gets either a brief nod, or is skipped over in history classes. A war no less brutal than any other war; yet, forgotten except in a situation comedy television show. "Aw, nobody wants to hear about it.", is the common reply when a story slips out and a request for more information is wanted. They climb back in their shell; but I can see the pain in their eyes.
Frustrating.
Complain about this comment
231. publiusdetroit wrote: Ref 228 MarcusAureliusII
It is obvious the above has not himself been in a similar life-threatening situation. Or has met, or been involved with, anyone so threatened.
I have never known anyone who has been in such a situation who has not thereafter spoken of it with total detachment and calm. Once you have come to terms with the probability (or anticipated inevitability) of your death and you thereafter find yourself alive, it is simply not possible to convey the experience to anyone else in any other way.
I have no wish otherwise to enter this particular debate.
I have made my opinion of that poster's general maliciousness, even malevolence, his personalisations and his constant attempts to turn every thread to his own agenda on these blogs clear enough in the past.
Leave him to alone to his fantasies.
But I would appreciate the more responsible members of this forum pausing for a moment to reflect on all those who have not survived and whose stories can sometimes be told only at second- or third-hand if at all. Or must remain untold because they did not survive and because people like me do not engage in fabrications and fantastic speculation.
Complain about this comment
What most concerns me is the fact that in many "free" european countries a person can be arrested for simply stating his opinion in public. I'm not talking about urging someone to harm another or inciting a riot, but merely saying something that might offend some protected group. If a man believes that all moslems are terrorists, the holocaust never happened, blacks are inferior or that the earth is flat where is the harm in letting him say that. Let him voice his opinion and let his opponents voice their disagreement.
Once a government starts to decide which opinions can be publicly stated and which ones can't, where does it stop and who decides which viewpoints are "legitimate" and which are inciting.
Complain about this comment
Here's Michael Savage's response to being banned;
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5798
Here's his website;
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/
Draw your own conclusions.
This could be a great opportunity for another war with England. I was never really satisfied with the way the War of 1812 came out. Here's a chance to fix it. It may be almost 200 years but I say better late than never.
Complain about this comment
Ref 236 british-ish
If you read the recent posts between Marcus and I, you will see there are two people having a discussion without either of us calling each other names, nor being the least disrespectful to one another. I have an interest in his pursuit of this topic. It is apparent to me that it holds his deep interest. I hope he and I will continue our discussion.
Complain about this comment
I'll come back when the subject is other than staphylococcus aureus.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
I do not find it obvious that you have not experienced a traumatic event. Please do not let others bait you from our discussion. We have both been exercising responsible, as well as respectful free speech. Let us continue.
Based upon your best information and speculation; what is your theory regarding Mr. Johnston's captivity? A good place to start.
I'm a night owl, so the hour is not late if you care to continue.
Complain about this comment
194. At 11:28pm on 09 May 2009, aquarizonagal wrote:
"Is naivete actually a freedom? Ignorance of a law does not preclude punishment if one should inadvertently break that law. Some have learned this to their sorrow, especially when visiting in unfamiliar places. "
Naivete can be a kind of freedom - the freedom from having too much information. But I was talking about the freedom to choose naivete - or ignorance, if you like. There is great freedom in just not caring.
On your particular concern, most all of us learn the official and unofficial behavior of the local officers of the law, it is how we avoid the irritating inconvenience of being stopped against our will - just as every prey animal learns the whereabouts and movements of the local predators. It takes real boldness to project self assurance, that they are not interested in you.
KScurmudgeon
moderately free
Complain about this comment
AndyPost (#9) "Growing up in the U.S. you tend to take the Bill of Rights for granted. The first amendment prevents the police from destroying any work art, not to mention one that contained religious messages!"
I'm pretty sure the first amendment does not protect graffiti applied to a wall belonging to someone other than the artist without permission of the wall's owner. The pwner of the wall can paint it any way he or she wants.
There are laws in some jurisdictions which protect legitimate works of art, but that's not a first amendment thing. If it were, there would be no need for the law.
If you can cite a court case showing that this is a first amemdment rifht, I'd like to see it.
Complain about this comment
196 Faeyth
205 Publius
And any others tempted to walk in a train tunnel.
The class I railroads have, collectively, a very good safety record. They have reduced track level fatal accidents by roughly 40% in the last decade, mainly by grade separation. The railroads work hard at this. Safety is a really big deal in the railroad industry.
There is a saying in the business that "Anytime is Train Time".
As a pedestrian, you cannot win in a physical argument with a freight train.
In a train tunnel, or on a train bridge, there is often nowhere to hide.
The Detroit-Windsor train tunnel crossing is one of the busiest in the world.
If any reader of this blog is for any reason tempted to try and walk a train tunnel on a rail line that is in service, particularly a busy train tunnel like the one at Windsor, please, for heaven's sake lie down until the urge goes away. Do not play Russian Roulette with freight locomotives.
How do you tell that a rail line is in service? Well, for a start, the top of the rail is shiny, not rusty; the grass isn't growing a foot high between the sleepers, the sleepers smell of fresh creosote, (or are concrete, steel, or an engineered polymer) and the ballast - i.e., the gravel, is fresh.
As an addendum, many pedestrians like to walk along train tracks while wearing I-pods or similar devices. Based on reported incidents, this is a good way to commit suicide. (Given that freight trains shake the ground, just how loud are these people playing their music? Doesn't matter, they die all the same, or they suffer really horrible injuries.)
Save your mother grief. Stay off the tracks.
Public Service I.F.
Complain about this comment
Ref 242 KScurmudgeon
Naivete is only an illusion of freedom. We are going though a crisis that has been able to arrive at dire straits because too many citizens have chosen to be naive.
Think about it.
I give my retirement savings to a broker who invests my money into whatever the broker decides will serve themselves best. I pay no attention that my money is invested into mutual funds heavily focused on dot.com stocks with no assets. The dot.com market goes bust, I whine and stamp my feet. Do I now take charge of my investments? No, I move them to another broker who invests them in mutual funds heavily focused on junk mortgages. The house of cards collapses. I lose a third to one half of my investments. Now I panic because I have no clue what is going on in the markets. I lost my job because the market went bust. I lost my home because I could not afford my junk mortgage. I rant and rage and blame everybody else except my sloth.
Am I free? Or just a fool who had been fleeced.
It is the duty of each citizen to be a well-informed, active voter if a republic, based on Democratic principles is to survive. Those citizens who choose not to perform their duty as a well-informed, active voter for their country are a greater threat to the nation then any outside force.
Complain about this comment
245. At 06:23am on 10 May 2009, publiusdetroit wrote:
"Naivete is only an illusion of freedom. We are going though a crisis that has been able to arrive at dire straits because too many citizens have chosen to be naive."
Of course, of course, that is the reasonable, reasoned, responsible approach. It is freedom from the burdens of responsibility, and above all from the tyranny of reason, that I am espousing (rather tongue in cheek - sorry you didn't get that part, either my poor writing skills or your very serious perspective at work. But then, it is that kind of somber seriousness I am protesting).
And how much control did you actually have in this financial crisis? I personally put my money in an annuity, and lost nothing (lucky, care free me). Then I had medical troubles, was off work for a good bit, and had to withdraw an equivalent part to pay the bills. So much for personal responsibility.
Really - together we make a fair argument that the Americans are probably at the bottom of this business, at the bottom of the house of cards as it appears to be now, a combination of my cherished ignorance and your moral and civic responsibility. But we are not at all alone there, now are we?
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
I am a British shock jock you see
jacqui smith don't speak for me
She's on a power trip with glee
I stand for speech that is free
Anyway labour's on it's way out
So she really don't have much clout
The right thing to do if wise
Is for us to Savage apologize
For sure Britain should never offend
America because she 's our best friend.!
fantazamaraz: Writer-Director,
Critic-Commentator,
Former top British radio DJ US.
Complain about this comment
ref #221
The thread has deviated on to Alan Johnson. I posted this on the HYS board a while back. Why didn't the BBC push for the release of CPL Shalit from the same terrorists and where were the rallies caling for his release?
Complain about this comment
- "Why didn't the BBC push for the release of CPL Shalit from the same terrorists and where were the rallies caling for his release?"
And, while they're at it, why not for the release of These folks too?Background:
Israel's use of administrative detention blatantly violates these restrictions. Over the years, Israel has held Palestinians in prolonged detention without trying them and without informing them of the suspicions against them. While detainees may appeal the detention, neither they nor their attorneys are allowed to see the evidence. Israel has therefore made a charade out of the entire system of procedural safeguards in both domestic and international law regarding the right to liberty and due process. "
Go Majik! Freedom for all!
Complain about this comment
I thought is was interesting that durring the Bush administration there were a lot of editorials, and news reports that were actually editorials, about how the "Patriot act" infringed on citizens freedoms in non US news outlets. Yet if you look at the the new powers granted to the US Government by the Patriot act, they were already in existance in other countries for years, including Canada and the U.K. The French gonerment has MUCH more ability to investigate citizens.
Complain about this comment
ref #249
I will try to explain this to you, Isreal is a soviergn country that arrested terrorists and other criminals.
Hamas the terrorist group which kidnapped Johnson snuck into Israel and kidnapped Shalit.
I noticed you did not answer my question about the rallies and the BBC not urging an immediate release of that terrorist prisnor.
Complain about this comment
Majik,
- "Isreal is a soviergn country that arrested terrorists and other criminals."
But is not prepared to provide evidence, and holds them without charge or trial for extended periods. I wonder where the Shrub regime got the idea of Camp Delta?- "As of February 2009, Israel is holding more than 560 Palestinians in administrative detention in facilities run by the Israel Prison Service (IPS).
They must be criminals or terrorists, because Israel says so.Administrative detainees, by duration of detention
Duration; No. of detainees
Under six months; 176
Six months to one year; 154
One year to 1 ½ years; 120
1 ½ years to two years; 56
Two years to 2 ½ years; 19
2 ½ years to three years; 18
Three years to 3 ½ years; 2
3 ½ years to four years; 0
Four years to 4 ½ years; 1
Over 4 ½ years; 2
Total; 548"
Source: B'Tselem
Complain about this comment
british-ish
I find your assumptions, claims of what is fact and what is not fact, invariably wrong, you opinions based on flawed logic and it is no different here;
#236
"It is obvious the above has not himself been in a similar life-threatening situation. Or has met, or been involved with, anyone so threatened."
In February 1990, I was involved in what should have been a fatal car crash. Driving on an interstate highway on a rainy morning at about 55 mph, my car was struck from the side at the rear quarterpanel just behind the rear wheel on the driver's side of the car. The other driver as it later turned out in the legal deposition had fallen asleep at the wheel of his car due to lack of sleep the night before. My car was sent spinning in a slow counterclockwise turn. A semi truck jackknifed to avoid hitting me. My car was completely out of control. None of my skills driving in snow worked to regain control over the car, the antilock brakes could not slow the car either. It was certain that I was going to hit the concrete center divider head on. I expected to die within a few seconds, probably between 5 and 10 after the initial impact. In retrospect, it was an interesting experience. I was surprised that I was not in the least bit frightened but it was a very sad and lonely experience. Being only 43 I felt I'd been cheated out of half my life. The car did hit the wall at high speed and continued to spin. The shoulder harness, seat belt (both manditory use by law at the time) and the engineered energy absorbing crumple zones worked to save my life much to my surprise. At the very least I expected my head to hit the winshield. At first I was only dazed, I didn't think I had been badly hurt. But within a day I found out my spine had been twisted up like a pretzel and two weeks later I found I'd suffered a concussion. It took a year and a half of chiropractic therapy and four months of physical therapy for me to physically recover, many months for the concussion to heal, and a long time measured in years for the trauma to subside such as no longer being an overly cautious driver. During that period I fought with everybody on the slightest provocation and nearly lost my job on account of it. Five doctors told me it was surprising I was still alive. Had the impact been any more severe or the car not have been large and strongly built, I probably wouldn't be. (Now I only fight when I have good reason to...like here :-) I guess in some aspects I am not the same person I was before the accident. But in some ways I'm a lot tougher and I now do things that seem far riskier than I ever would have likely done before the accident. You see I feel I'm living on borrowed time.
What do you know about me...or anything else for that matter?
Complain about this comment
Staying on the topic of Freedoms and the questions Justin Webb posed at the top of the page:
Who has more freedom?
Which nation is freer?
One measure is the Worldwide Press Freedom Index which assesses press freedom in 169 countries. The top 14 countries are all in Europe, and all the Scandinavian countries occupy high positions. The UK is 24th and the US is 48th. New Zealand is 15th, Canada 18th and Australia is 28th.
Complain about this comment
Even without the Patriot Act, freedom of speech is far from absolute in the United States. I don't know what serious thought the British government has given to this topic, it appears little if any. But the United States Supreme Court has given a great deal of it and is very wary of what it calls "starting down the slippery slope" of censorship because it can lead ultimately to loss of all freedoms. Here are some things not protected by the freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment besides shouting fire in a crowded theater;
It is not legal to;
Advocate the violent overthrow of the United States governemt.
Publish pornography in which children are abused or even view it.
Advocate the perpetration of a crime, an often difficult thing for prosecutors to prove in a court, there has to be a clear connection between what was said for example in hate literature or hate speech and the crime itself. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Publish detailed plans to build an atom bomb.
Violate a court order not to disclose either verbally or in writing any information the court decrees must remain secret.
Disclose government classified secret documents.
Speak or write in a way that gives aid or comfort to an emeny in times of war. (That's been a problem, the government's unwillingness to declare war when in fact we've been at war such as we are now with Islamic terrorists.)
Individual cases can be tried in court and appealed. This is fair in a country where there is strict separation of powers and there is a clearly independent Judiciary which is not subordinated to other branches of government.
The Constitution of the United States is not a suicide pact, it does not grant unlimited rights or freedoms in all circumstances. It exists to protect the greater good of society as a whole and sometimes that means ordinary freedoms are restricted or denied. Violate them and you could go to jail...or even be executed as in the case of the Rosenburgs who were convicted of giving information about the secrets for building nuclear weapons to the USSR. Ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defense.
The law involving pornography in particular is periodically tested and may change over time as public sensibilities over what is acceptable changes. In recent decades, the standards governing these restrictions seem to have been relaxed in some cases, strengthened in others.
Laws involving the internet have lagged behind the technology itself. The courts seem to be in a perpetual state of catching up. Cases involving disclosure of personal information and identity theft are examples.
Complain about this comment
Ref 253 MarcusAurelius Nil
You asked"What do you know about me?"
Same applies to everyone on this page.
We do know that you invent facts, using it to draw false conclusions, like claiming the American-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi had been killed by the Iranians. Her appeal takes place this week, so the Iranians have managed to bring her back from the dead!
There isn't even any reference on the internet that she'd been killed, you just made it up.
Complain about this comment
ref #252 You seems to think Israel is required to give justification to international bodies. The same international bodies like the U.N who allowed Hamas and Hezbollah to operate from their positions.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
- "You seems to think Israel is required to give justification to international bodies."
Yes I do. It is a condition of Membership that Israel comply with international law and UN principles.- "The same international bodies like the U.N..."
Through which Israel claims legitimacy while refusing to honour her responsibilities as a member by defying and ignoring innumerable resolutions thereof. Israel is a rogue nation of the first order, as anyone who has taken the trouble to study even the smallest amount of her history and behaviour (and is even slightly literate) will know.Salaam, etc.
Complain about this comment
Who has more freedom? Justin, I believe the answer to your question depends on the expectations and values of the societies we live in. If hate speech and the incitement of violence are considered essential to guarantee our right to free speech, I believe the USA enjoys more "freedom" in this area than Europe does.
I believe, however, that boundaries must be established to protect other freedoms and rights that could be adversely affected by irresponsible discourse. The key rests on striking a balance between the right to freedom of expression and the need for a legal approach to protect society from elements determined to undermine its values and security.
Complain about this comment
Ref 255 MarcusAureliusII
Good post. Thanks.
I'm sure you would agree that the limitations to free speech you noted in your post are reasonable limitations. The disclosure of government documents is always another gray area that finds it's way into the courts often.
One's right to free speech does come with reasonable limitations. That ties back into my statements regarding responsible free speech.
Complain about this comment
Whilst Press Freedom exists in theory, in practice the story is quite different. As mentioned in a previous post, sometimes people from outside a country know more than the citizens. Coverage of some news has received wider coverage in Europe than it does in USA. The reverse may also apply. A research team in America attempt to identify the top stories which are subject censorship, completely ignored or downplayed by the mainstream media, presumably because they feel their audience doesn't want to know.
Top stories censored, ignored or downplayed in USA:
1) The full extent of the deaths caused in Iraq by US Occupation, estimated in the range 1,000,000 - 1,200,000.
2)The Security and Prosperity Partnership: the secret Bush initiative for USA, Mexico and Canada to coordinate military operations and commercial operations without putting the matter through Congress.
3) The FBI's Infraguard. The scheme to recruit 23,000 business leaders, asking them to provide "information and intelligence" in exchange for preferential treatment: they will receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does.
4) Testimony by 300 Iraqi and Afghanistan War Veterans. In March 2008 the 300 Vets met up to provide individual testimony for the media/press in one forum in the belief that their stories would be more credible. They invited all the media. Few turned up, they preferred covering alternative stories at the time like New York's Fashion Week. Of those that did turn up, little made it through to the public. Just two broadcast the testimonies live.
Complain about this comment
Ref 253 MarcusAureliusII
My son had a similar wreck on his way to work at age 19. A speeding driver (100mph) forced him into a concrete divider. His mid-size pickup was a twisted, crumbled mess after riding along the wall until slamming into an abutment and turning over on it's side. He and I thank the engineers at FMC for the very functionable airbags, seat belts, and crumble cells built into his truck. Use of the 'jaws of life' were employed to remove my son from the wreck. His worse physical injury was a broken ankle from where the floor of the truck buckled up to trap his brake foot against the underside of the dash board.
He too had learned that life can end in a moment. You can imagine that he came to terms with his own mortality. A very startling realization for anyone, especially so for a teenager.
Complain about this comment
Another method of measureand comparing freedom is the Index of Econonic Freedom. It should be noted that this does not necessarily translate to individual freedoms, which I believe Justin Webb's question intended. Indeed, it could be argued business and corporation freedom can be at the expennse of individual freedoms. This particular index does have its critics.
Measured in an index giving scores up to 100 USA is 6th, Canada 7th, UK 10th. There's little difference in the scores 80.7, 80.5 and 79.0 respectively. France gets 63.3 points as a European comaprison.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Should Savage be banned? Too right he should.
To use an analogy:
- as the landlord, would you allow a rowdy bunch in your pub to cause upset and conflict? No. You'd kick them out and bar them from coming in.
- when someone comes into your house, they have to operate by your rules, not their own, otherwise they're shown the door.
The likes of Savage are people who will stir up unrest and cause major offence and upsetting the locals with their backward, ignorant vile. We don't need them here; we're ABOVE the likes of Savage and co.
Also..why doesn't Savage use his real surname, WEINER? Because it reflects what he is better. And also, for someone who has a PhD, he is an embarassment to academia. Want to see some of the things he has said? Just google them, or listen to some on youtube. You'd be disgusted.
Complain about this comment
ref #259
Has Russia allowed a U.N investigation of them invading Georgia and occupying 2 regions?
Who are you kdding you only criticize Israel for defending itself , becuase you by the lies of the Palestinians.
If Israel was not a jewish majority nation, there would be no international outcry.
The U.N human Right council exists only to defame Israel, never criticizing true war criminals like Iranain Mullahs, the cowardly Sheik Nazrallah, the Castro brothers and their protoge Dictator Hugo
Complain about this comment
It is Mothers Day in America.
Mothers Day. Hello! lol
I went out of my way to listen to Michael Savage and although he is not to my taste - too loud( and am I right that certain targets are favoured for his criticism?) I would not ban him.
But watching C-Span occasionally - I am intrigued that he and other - "screamers" was it Justin, are seemingly treated as matter of fact, if not downright sensible "commonsense" commentators on the USA's lot on a lot of subjects. I wouldn't know but Michael and Co - from all political points of view - need to "turn the volume down" if they want my serious attention. But then I doubt if they want it. And the phone callers and YouTube comments confirm Savage and others have a fan base so perhaps I am not needed anyway.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#269. s At 3:55pm on 10 May 2009, David_Cunard
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
How could it be removed when it wasn't even seen? This morning, the Mods seem to have no sense of humour. A pity, because this simply plays into the notion that freedom of speech in the UK is not what it once was. Perhaps my jest was considered tasteless, but it was nothing like some of what passes for "humour" on BBC radio and television. I guess the right and left hands at the Beeb don't know what the other is doing.
Complain about this comment
ref #270
We usually don't agree but the moderators are being too heavy handed with removing post which in my mind don't break house rules
Complain about this comment
ref #268
Savage and the left equvilents Ed Shultz and Keith Obermann preach to the choir( I hope this does not offend the Atheists here)
The reason that Fox News beat CNN and MSNBC combigned is because both sides are heard.
Complain about this comment
I want to make it clear that I do not agree with Michael Savage on any of his views. This guy is soft headed and much too far to the left for me. He only wants to boycott Britain. Hah, fat lot of good that will do. They don't make anything I buy anyway. Do they still make something worth consuming besides Scotch Whiskey? So do I get banned too? Perhaps we in America should start banning Brits whose opinions we don't agree with, opinions that we find abhorrent and antithetical to our values...starting with BBC :-)
Complain about this comment
Re #269 and #270, almost instantly I received an e-mail which read/reads
Comments posted to BBC blogs will be removed if they are considered likely to provoke, attack or offend others; are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable; are considered to have been posted with an intention to disrupt; contain swear words (including abbreviations or alternative spellings) or other language likely to offend.
That's pretty much a catch-all since almost anything can be considered "likely to offend". And as for "provoking", if every such post were to be removed, there would be very little to read!
Complain about this comment
#273
Marcus,
Whiskey with an e is favoured by our cousins in Ireland. Forgive me, we Scots are a wee bit touchy when it comes to whisky.
(My own preference is for Tennessee sour mash whiskey).
pedantic git
Complain about this comment
273, 275, Marcus, Scotch-git has highlighted an important sobriety test
common among Scots - the ability to spell. As befits a literate people,
this supersedes the traditional measure which we apply, the ability to
walk a straight line.
Complain about this comment
I'm no fan of Michael Weiner Ph.D., aka Michael Savage, but I have grave concerns about thought police banning him from the UK. A ban on Rush Limbaugh would, in my opinion, be absurd. He may be a gas bag but he's no hater. Anne Coulter is often bitingly sarcastic and her sarcasim is mistaken for hate speech against the Left.
However, I don't find the UK to be repressive. In fact, I may be moving to Scotland late this year or next year for personal reasons, nothing to do with politics in either nation.
Complain about this comment
I disagree that the US is freer. Most news is baby pablum, the nation itself has been conditioned to say 'have a nice day', to avoid individualism & eccentricity. If you get famous you can have your say, but let's recall that Michael Moore was arrested during GW Bush's administration when he tried to say a few things and his DVD was coming out about 911 & the administration. I suspect most people get carted off by ambulance and labelled bi-polar if they attempt to protest singly or in a way that attracts attention. It's mainly a nation in ignorance unless they search out news about the outside world on the internet and it may presuppose a 'freer' attitude to speak out but none of them do because they have no idea that they're not necessarily the world's best at everything nation and there a plenty of things they could be protesting about - a socialised healthcare system for one, but they're conditioned to fear the word itself when in fact, Canada's 'socialist' healthcare system works very well and is a true representation of democracy, which is peace, order & good government for the people by the people.
Complain about this comment
ref #278
Michael Moore is a great example of Freedom of the Press and Expression. All of his so called documentries are full of lies and designed to hurt people. But because he attacks the famous and people who have contributed alot more than this fraud; he can do it.
I suggest you watch Celsius 311 which is a documentry exposing Michael Moore
Complain about this comment
270, David.
"his comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules. "
I think sometimes the removal of a comment has nothing to do with house rules, but is sensorship pure and simple. I made two comments that never appeared. One said that the Twin Towers tragedy was minor compared with the bombardment of Britain and Europe in WWII. The second had to do with the relatives of those who died in the Twin Towers, some of which was not flattering. Victims wear a halo which is often not deserved and history never challenges. That is why I have never been interested in history. Even the landing in the Hudson had an unattractive side. One of the passengers ran amok, knocked down a stewardess and opened the back emergency door which is why the plane flooded. That bit of info was immeditely suppressed never to appear again. In your comment that was removed you may have included a truth that no one wants to hear.
Complain about this comment
David Cunard: "But I did, asking from where you received your ill-founded opinion of Great Britain and her citizens. You have chosen not to respond."
The comments on this thread speak far more loudly than any further comments I can make; they form an illustrated encyclopedia of anti-Americanism.
Complain about this comment
dianaatkin: "I disagree that the US is freer. Most news is baby pablum, the nation itself has been conditioned to say 'have a nice day', to avoid individualism & eccentricity. If you get famous you can have your say, but let's recall that Michael Moore was arrested during GW Bush's administration when he tried to say a few things and his DVD was coming out about 911 & the administration. I suspect most people get carted off by ambulance and labelled bi-polar if they attempt to protest singly or in a way that attracts attention. It's mainly a nation in ignorance unless they search out news about the outside world on the internet and it may presuppose a 'freer' attitude to speak out but none of them do because they have no idea that they're not necessarily the world's best at everything nation and there a plenty of things they could be protesting about - a socialised healthcare system for one, but they're conditioned to fear the word itself when in fact, Canada's 'socialist' healthcare system works very well and is a true representation of democracy, which is peace, order & good government for the people by the people."
This really is too good - the distilled essence of anti-American ideology at its crudest and most vulgar. (At least there are no mocking insults about 9/11)
When this sort of "thinking" is this widespread, it is impossible to argue.
There is no question there is absolutely nothing left of the old relations between Britain and the US. We we were once allies - perhaps not great friends and always somewhat distrustful of each other - but at least nominal allies. Now even that is gone, washed away in an avalanche of anti-Americanism.
Complain about this comment
Ref 279 MagicKirin
"All of his so called documentries are full of lies and designed to hurt people"
How many of these people Michael Moore has "hurt" needed hospital treatment or were fatalities?
If he has told lies, the "famous people" can sue and the matter determined in court?
I'm aware that many of 'threatened' to sue Moore. I seem to recall Sean Hannity saying he was to sue. Michael Moore has been taken to court on several occasions - and won every case. There doesn't seem to be any eveidence behind your claim that people have been "hurt" through his lies. They may have been "hurt" by the truth though.
I remember reading an article a year or so back titled something like, " Think Again About Sueing Moore, He's Done His Research."
Complain about this comment
Ref 270. David_Cunard
You asked, "How could it be removed when it wasn't even seen?"
Very easily. It was removed at the pre-moderation stage.
Complain about this comment
278, diana, how much time have you spent in the States? Michael Moore is
not exactly a benchmark of objectivity - he is an entertainer, not a
journalist. For example, he chopped up an interview with Condi Rice
in F-9/11 to make it seem that she had prior knowledge of the AQ attacks.
As for sources for news, we actually do go out on the internet because,
gosh darn, we invented it. We invented the personal computer, too,
and you might be surprised that it was an incredibly subversive thing
to do at the time. I was there, and I helped make it happen.
The news media here is terrible, but the fact that fewer and fewer people
tune in to msm sources is testimony to their loss of credibility.
Complain about this comment
Michael Moore is a shrewd and clever propagandist with a sledgehammer style. He does make films about serious topics, but transforms them into propaganda rather than art.
He has no understanding or generosity towards his subjects; as a result, he makes points that might be powerful if an artist made them, but as propaganda they fall flat. A great artist might make a powerful film about American health care. Moore makes an ugly cartoon.
His films are crude cartoons that are enormously popular in Europe because they fit perfectly with the anti-American ideology that is so popular and so widespread. Moore is being made a fool of in Europe, but he has only himself to blame for his antics.
Most anti-Americans would much rather congratulate themselves while laughing at a one-dimensional cartoon than deal with the reality of American life.
For an American, Moore's persona is in itself an absurd joke: he is a very wealthy and influential man who portrays himself as a "regular guy" and dresses up in "ordinary man proletariat" get-up - a ridiculous performance that might convince Europeans but is utterly preposterous to us.
Complain about this comment
I still find it amazing that people like Timothy and Marcus can claim that there is no alliance between Britain and the USA anymore. If that was the case, we wouldn't have been the only country in the world that sided with America against great international pressure for the invasion of Iraq. Anyone who thinks that Britain isn't one of the closest, if not the closest ally the USA has, has their head stuck in a hole for the last few years.
Complain about this comment
Ref 282 TimothyR444
If there is much "anti-Americanism" as you claim, how do you explain it?
Complain about this comment
Ref 286 TimothyR444
That's a lot of personal opinion of yours. Any facts? Any evidence he has been successfully sued for lies, as Magic claimed in #279.
That he made his films entertaining, and made money from them - Good Luck to him. That's the job of the film-maker.
But has anyone proved the facts, the framework of his film, were lies?
Complain about this comment
kittle: "I still find it amazing that people like Timothy and Marcus can claim that there is no alliance between Britain and the USA anymore. If that was the case, we wouldn't have been the only country in the world that sided with America against great international pressure for the invasion of Iraq. Anyone who thinks that Britain isn't one of the closest, if not the closest ally the USA has, has their head stuck in a hole for the last few years."
You mention the war in Iraq as an example of our alliance??
Surely that is used by anti-Americans as one of the most popular sources for their ideology?
At one time Britain and the US fought together. That time, unfortunately, is past and will not come again.
Simply look over any discussion forum where the relations between the US and Britain are discussed, this site included. The internet is a veritable bumper crop of anti-American whining, griping, complaining and insults. Obviously this is not the basis for an alliance of any kind. Quite the contrary!
Complain about this comment
Richard SM: "That he made his films entertaining, and made money from them - Good Luck to him. That's the job of the film-maker.
But has anyone proved the facts, the framework of his film, were lies"
What is all this? You appear to have misunderstood my post. I have no interest in lawsuits.
Moore does choose serious topics, but he is a crude and vulgar propagandist, not a film-making artist. As a result his films do have a certain amount of power - but it is the power of one-dimensional cartoons.
As for being "entertaining", that is certainly not enough when the topic is serious. He is addressing the lives of real people. His childish and foolish antics are not enough.
Complain about this comment
ref #289
Here is one source on the Moore lies http://www.mooreexposed.com/
Just google for others.
I don't know how familiar you are with the U.S legal system, but public figures can rarely sucessfuly sue.
Complain about this comment
If you want to know which nation really has freedom of speech, just watch any session of the British House of Commons and it doesn't have to be PMQT either. Hundreds of howling idiots shout down anyone and everyone who wants to speak including the prime minister of the nation. It's all he or anyone can do to make themselves heard over the cacophony created by the mob, most of whom are probably inebriated as well as rude. (We have places like that in America, the infamous Columbia University in New York City for example where anyone not agreeing with the politically correct views of the campus culture is not allowed to speake because they are shouted down. It is typical of the political left.) Now compare that to what civilized people do, either House of the Congress of the United States or any of their committee or subcommittee hearings for example. One person talks at a time, that rule is voluntarily adhered to almost always and when there is so much as a peep distracting the group from listing to what whomever has the floor is saying, the presider bangs the gavel down and calls for order. Two such distractions in a row often brings a warning that the sargeant at arms will escort offenders from the chamber. What a difference in the quality of discourse. This is reflected in the general culture for the most part of the two countries and strongly illustrates the enormous difference between them.
g&r;
"Scotch-git has highlighted an important sobriety test
common among Scots - the ability to spell"
I'll highlight an important intelligence test, the ability to think. The ability to seperate what is critical, the crux of an idea, a line of reasoning, from the trivial such as spelling. By that test, you and he come up very short.
Complain about this comment
287. Kittle wrote:
"I still find it amazing that people like Timothy and Marcus can claim that there is no alliance between Britain and the USA anymore. If that was the case, we wouldn't have been the only country in the world that sided with America for the invasion of Iraq."
kittle, it was not just the UK siding with the USA. Please share the blame.... Italy was part of the so-called coalition of the willing. However this was pretty much against the will of 95% of the Italian people, who have learnt the hard way twice about gettinginvolved in other people's wars.
Blame Berlusconi, who, it is not outrageous to suggest, wanted dinner at the White House and some international credibility. Dinner he got.
Complain about this comment
TimothyR444
"Moore does choose serious topics, but he is a crude and vulgar propagandist, not a film-making artist. As a result his films do have a certain amount of power - but it is the power of one-dimensional cartoons."
Your problem with Moore appears to be artistic, then.
I have no axe to grind in his favour, but it seems that the attacks on Moore hinge on his character / hypocrisy / wealth , rather than the actual issues he addresses in his populist movies.
Presumably he was no always a millionaire, but became one after making movies, then it is ridiculous to imply that he should change his politics now that he is rich. It's called "champagne socialism", and while it might seem mildly hypocritical, it is still raising issues on behalf of people who do not have the means or access to raise them.
Just because he may not be as much of an average Joe as the rest of us, does not mean that he is lying in his movies.
Complain about this comment
290 Timothy
"Simply look over any discussion forum where the relations between the US and Britain are discussed, this site included. The internet is a veritable bumper crop of anti-American whining, griping, complaining and insults. Obviously this is not the basis for an alliance of any kind. Quite the contrary!"
Poor Tim ... you think the content of a blog could be the basis for a political alliance or not!!! I'm glad you're not President.
If you could look beyond your own persecution complex and accept that criticism of certain aspects of a country does not equate to being "anti", then you would realise that the vast majority of REGULAR European contributors are decided pro-USA, just not blindly so.
If Europeans were to judge the USA by the contributions of a certain Roman Emperor, then you'd lose out on alot of tourist Euros ($1.36).
The internet is a crop of lots of extreme views .... I bet there are lots of sites that fully mirror your own views.
Complain about this comment
Hmm, in the UK I'm free from worry about health care costs, while many Americans are either locked into jobs with health benefits or are in fear of getting ill, they are free to spend as much as they like, even if the results aren't that impressive.
In the UK I'm not terrified by armed police, or by armed citizens, but Americans get to use guns for enjoyment and protection. I feel watched in cities in both countries.
Americans have much more freedom over their choice in candidates with primaries, and their democracy is far more grass roots based, they vote directly for their president, our PM is indirect, and at worse an accident of circumstance like Brown.
Both countries have gone crazy with anti-terrorist legislation, seizing civil liberties like they're just inconveniences. I despise 28 days no charge policies and am physically disgusted Labour wants more, I hate their ID card policy as it's simply going to creep further and further until an ID card is required to get a job, and then you will be required it to be in a public space. However, America wins on the anti-liberty front with torture and Gitmo.
Americans probably feel like they have more freedom because they live in a big empty country with miles of unspoilt wilderness. Well, lucky them.
Complain about this comment
Numerous Islamic clerics have been banned from the UK for the same reasons as Savage has been banned.
Complain about this comment
Oh, ps--"Who has more freedom"? Try getting on the TV if you're Noam Chomsky. On the other hand, if you want to speak at the Oxford Union, Noam is welcome--as he did when I was there in 1989.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu:
Presumably he was no always a millionaire, but became one after making movies, then it is ridiculous to imply that he should change his politics now that he is rich. It's called "champagne socialism", and while it might seem mildly hypocritical, it is still raising issues on behalf of people who do not have the means or access to raise them.
Just because he may not be as much of an average Joe as the rest of us, does not mean that he is lying in his movies.
No - this doesn't work. You appear to accept Moore's own presentation of himself as a brave man of the people. He is nothing of the sort. His blue-collar Robim Hood routine works for those who love to watch and listen to him and then cluck about how evil Americans are and how "true" and "barve" Michael Moore is. He confirms all the ugliest stereotypes about Americans and this, of course, is exactly why he is so trendy and popular.
He is not a hero. He is a shrewd and clever manipulator.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu: "Poor Tim ... you think the content of a blog could be the basis for a political alliance or not!!! I'm glad you're not President."
This is just nonsense. "Poor Tim" indeed. I only respond to posts that contain thoughts.
Complain about this comment
Re: #273, 275, 276, 293
Marcus,
I am not your enemy. I know I'm being pedantic, but I beg your indulgence. If it is distilled in Scotland or Canada the correct spelling is 'Whisky'.
I do enjoy reading your comments. The lack of subtlety is refreshing.
(That is an observation, not a criticism).
Keep telling it like it is!
S-g
Complain about this comment
smileytm: --"Who has more freedom"? Try getting on the TV if you're Noam Chomsky. On the other hand, if you want to speak at the Oxford Union, Noam is welcome--as he did when I was there in 1989."
Too absurd.
Noam Chomsky has a large and devoted following on the left, and no shortage of media attentoin and access in the US; this has been true for more than four decades.
I'm sorry to disappoint you - but those are the facts.
Complain about this comment
For the moment, there is a military alliance between the US and Britain and that is as far as it goes. This is because their assessment of the world and the dangers they mutually face makes it to their advantage to have such an alliance...for now.
smileytm303;
Noam Chomsky has no problem getting on American television and his debates with Alan Dirschowitz were televised on C-Span. But he is far to busy with his adulation by Communist Europe and on neo-Bolshevick American college campuses to waste his precious lies on the American TV viewing public.
Chomsky is a master linguist who redefines the meaning of words to suit his political views. He's also altered the meaning of the word linguist itself which is redefined as; a pedantic elitist who lies through tricks in the usage of language to advance his hateful badly flawed communist and other anti-American dogmas. Small wonder he's so loved in Europe.
Complain about this comment
"Brachioradialis
However, America wins on the anti-liberty front with torture and Gitmo.
Americans probably feel like they have more freedom because they live in a big empty country with miles of unspoilt wilderness. Well, lucky them."
As have said again and again, it is impossible to address anti-Americanism when it is so ingrained and so deep.
This portrayal of gun-weilding Americans torturing people left and right in a vast and "empty" nation is so filled with insults, so offensive and so preposterous that one doesn't know where to begin.
Prejudice is always easy and enjoyable - but it leads nowhere.
How would you deal with real Americans if you ever met one? Would you know how to behave? Would you carry on like this? Would you attempt to develop a certain basic level of courtesy, or would you indulhge in these antics?
It is actually good news, in a way, that our nations are moving further and further apart. This sort of nonsense cannot produce anything good.
Complain about this comment
TimothyR444
"You appear to accept Moore's own presentation of himself as a brave man of the people. He is nothing of the sort. His blue-collar Robim Hood routine works for those who love to watch and listen to him and then cluck about how evil Americans are and how "true" and "barve" Michael Moore is. He confirms all the ugliest stereotypes about Americans and this, of course, is exactly why he is so trendy and popular."
You confuse issues with personalities. Nobody is calling Americans evil. Criticism of a system of gun ownership or healthcare does not equate to calling anyone evil.
I care nothing for Moore's presentation of himself. I care not whether he is rich or poor, fat or thin or whatever.
I am interested in the issues he raises .... "are the number of gun deaths unacceptable, would gun control change this" ... "would universal health care benefit lower income Americans" and so on.
Yes, his presentation is schlocky and over-the-top, and he may well be a hypocrit (I neiher know nor care), but the issues do merit discussion, and we do not see rational refutations of his claims, only personal attacks on his credibility. Attack his ideas, not him.
Complain about this comment
301. TimothyR444 wrote:
"RomeStu: "Poor Tim ... you think the content of a blog could be the basis for a political alliance or not!!! I'm glad you're not President."
This is just nonsense. "Poor Tim" indeed. I only respond to posts that contain thoughts."
Timothy. In case you can't remember your original post (290) to which I was responding here it is again.....
"Simply look over any discussion forum where the relations between the US and Britain are discussed, this site included. The internet is a veritable bumper crop of anti-American whining, griping, complaining and insults. Obviously this is not the basis for an alliance of any kind. Quite the contrary!"
Why do you think that the rantings or otherwise on any forum should be the basis of an alliance?
You seem to be lacking in thoughts over there in your glass house.
Complain about this comment
Ref 291 TimothyR444
OK we want evidence Michael Moore was lying in F9-11.
That you don't like him is abuntantly clear. But you haven't been able to point to any lies. Your effort goes into saying, "he's very wealthy, portrays himself as a regular guy, dresses up in ordinary man clothes, " and that he's "utterly preposterous." "Childish," "foolish" "not an artist." That's fine. You don't like him. Any evidence he was lying? No.
Ref 292. MagicKirin
OK , we're still looking for evidence Michael Moore was lying in F-911
I've checked your website out. It says he "weighs 400lbs" "is a millionaire," has two homes and earns a lot from his speaking tours. It links to "Michael Moore is a big, fat, white man." It then goes on to criticise Fahrenheit 911. It's the evidence of "lies" that I want.
There isn't any. It lists six points it doesn't like about the film. But no lies. It then goes on to criticise the style. Fine. They don't like the style. Any evidence he was lying? No.
Ref292 MagicKirin
I said that if Moore had lied, people could sue him. You said its rare. I googled and found several straight away. Any evidence to your claim? No.
Ref 293 MarcusAurelius NIL
You claimed to have the answer to which nation has Freedom of Speech. You then went to say you didn't like the British system, you preferred the American system.
That you didn't like is abundantly clear. But you haven't been able to point any facts to support your point either. Your effort goes into saying they're, "idiots" "a mob" You don't like our system. That's fine. Any evidence to support your claim. No.
Funny how you all popped up within 25 minutes of each other:
Timothy a medium interval. A medium post.
MagicKn a short interval. A short post.
MarcusA a longer interval. A longer post.
Marcus - I do believe that makes it 5-0
Well that was easy :-)))) No wonder you guys hold your simplistic views.
Complain about this comment
305 Timothy
Again you must be reminded that criticising certain aspects of a country (as Brachio did - torture and Gitmo) does not equate to anti-Americanism.
It equates to being anti-torture and anti-imprisonment without trial or charge.
If you actually read the rest of Brachio's post (297) you will see a positive view of the American system of candidate selection, which is in many ways superior to the UK party list system.
He/she also heavily criticised aspects of British life (ID cards,28 days rule) , yet I see no claims of rabid anti-Britishness from anyone.
It's not black or white - the world is shades of gray. Calm down and don't be so paranoid. People don't hate Americans .... they just disagree with certain policies / attitudes .... just as they often disagree with aspects of their own countries.
There may be a few lunatics who do hate America, but we often have to listen to certain contributors ranting against Europe. You just tune it out and deal with the rational comment.
Complain about this comment
@TimothyR444
"This portrayal of gun-weilding Americans torturing people left and right in a vast and "empty" nation is so filled with insults, so offensive and so preposterous that one doesn't know where to begin."
You are a big empty nation - Europe has 200 million more people in an area a half of the size. That's not an insult, I would love to live in a country with so much space, where I could buy a house and several acres for relatively dirt cheap prices.
As for the guns, that's a statement of fact, you have two hundred million of them and a strong culture for hunting and self protection. Put that one in the personal freedom column. Not calling you gun nuts, just saying you're mostly allowed to use them legally.
And your nation has tortured and it does hold people without charge. Statement. Of. Fact. Oh, the US also executes people. We learnt that was a bad idea back in the 60s.
None of this is an indictment of the average American, or any American. You need to learn to separate criticism of your country and government from yourself personally. I know plenty of Americans.
Complain about this comment
With freedom comes responsibility and even a little risk, Americans accept that. That means we put up with people like Michael Savage or Fred Phelps or even Michael Moore because we know that if we allow them to be silenced that our own right to speak out is endangered. If they offend some people, too bad; no one is guarunteed the right go through life without being offended.
Britons have chosen to surrender responsibility to government so they can go about their lives secure in the knowledge that government will keep them safe from objectionable ideas and protect those who believe they have the right never to be offended.
Complain about this comment
RichardSM:
It is evident that you have an extraordinary regard for Michael Moore and appear to view him as some sort of oracle. Yet I have not seen any reference at all to the profundities you admire.
His image and his attitude and his appearance are all part of the Michael Moore package, which is now sold all over the world. He invites personal comments because he makes personal conmments.
His references to "stupid white men" and "dumb Americans" and his costume bring whoops and squeals of delight from anti-American audiences who chuckle knowingly at his down-home wisdom and fake "truth-telling".
His costume and his sarcastic abuse of anyone who dares to question him are all part of the phenomenon.
You treat him like a hot-house plant that must be protectd and cared for. Michael Moore is many things - but a hot-house plant is not one of them.
I can understand why you are so dazzled, impressed and moved by him: he is a dream-come-true for anti-Americans, a third-rate, poor-man's philospher who mocks and ridicules and calls it art. Nevertheless, you are starting to sound like a public relatoins man for him.
As for this:
"Funny how you all popped up within 25 minutes of each other:
Timothy a medium interval. A medium post.
MagicKn a short interval. A short post.
MarcusA a longer interval. A longer post."
I am not clear what you are implying. Would you prefer that Americans stop posting here? Are you upset by the number of posts? The content?
Just questions....
Complain about this comment
Ref 292. MagicKirin
Ref your claim public figures rarely sue. I've just been reading at the many different cases which you say happen "rarely." How about this one, which blows your point right out the water:
In a sordid story where he was not without some guilt, Congressman Gary Condit sued author Dominick Dunne for USdollars 11 million because of lies. Eight months after the case was settled, Dunne suggested his original claim probably had some truth to it. So Condit sued him again!
You couldn't make it up !! And you're telling me it's rare!!
Your Government propaganda clearly works. It can claim you as one of its easier victims. :-))))
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"It is evident that you have an extraordinary regard for Michael Moore"
Oh Really. And where is the evidence you claim? You were trying to prove he is a liar. And miserably failed. I know very little about him.
Does Michael Moore an example of the anti-Americanism you talk about as well?
Is Barak Obama - is he anti American in your eyes?
And Pat Buchanan an anti American?
Sean Penn. Does he exhibit this anti-Americanism of yours?
Chuck Hagel. What's your view of Chuck Hagel?
Samuel L Jackson. Would he represent anti Americanism to you?
:-)
Complain about this comment
ref #308 and 313
You obviously did look at the link I sent you there were several examples of Moore lying.
As far as famous people suing, here an example the NYT ran a bogus front page story of John McCain having an affair with a lobbyist. there was no proff and no identifible source. McCain if he was Joe the Plumber or Joe the Bricklayer could have sued. But John McCain the war hero and a man who would be doing a far better job as President can't.
Complain about this comment
My thoughts:
The US has drastically gone back on freedom of speech. US Students used to be able to speak freely in schools. (Since Tinker vs. des Moines) Now (since Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeyer), students rights to free speech have been drastically cut.
Media outlets are no longer required to air opposing views. Further, it isn't a crime for media outlets to lie.
People can protest, though protests are restricted around abortion clinics, presidents, and funerals.
As for Michael Moore, his style turns me off. I haven't seen any of his films. I have read one of his books, and I highly encourage everyone to read his chapter on Bill Clinton, especially the Conservatives. (It won't change your opinion about Moore, but it just may make Conservatives think better about Clinton.)
Complain about this comment
A veritable tempest in a teapot, created by someone with much tooo much time on her hands.
I have listened to Mr. Savage off and on since 2000. Initially, I was put off by the over-the-top anger. He was dropped from the local radio market(so I guess I wasn't alone...), and reappeared a few years later.
He speaks to three main themes in general: Language, Borders, Culture.
He is very bright, well-read, and has built a successful show over the long haul in a very competitive business.
He is controversial, often right, and sometimes wrong. But we have the right to be wrong in a society that values free speech. A quick review of the sorts of things said about figures such as Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln in the demonstrates we have a tradition of bare-knuckle speech here.
So, tell me--if Savage is on HMG's blacklist, does that same list include Louis Farrakahn(a long-time and rabid anti-Semite), or Howard Stern?
Complain about this comment
Ref 316. MagicKirin
This is duck soup. McCain got the high profile Washington lobbyist Vicki Iseman to sue the Times instead - and several of its reporters and editors for USD 27 million in damages. :-)
And didn't the 'war hero' sue Bob Barr? The 'war hero' who crashed four planes before he went out to Vietnam, and then, when he joined the pilots who'd been out their for ages, McCain got shot down in the first month. And you wanted him in the White House? On his record, he might have slammed AF1 into the Disneyland. :-)
Complain about this comment
287, Kittle, I agree with you. You can't take the views of a few anonymous
posters on a blog as the attitude of an entire people.
Once, a few years ago, I staying at a hotel for a convention, and a
group of British sports car owners drove up. One of them had to make
an on-the-road repair. I was going to make some smart alec remark,
as I often do on this blog, but someone nearby stopped me, and whispered,
"Don't tell them that. They're our only allies."
Complain about this comment
#281. TimothyR444: David Cunard: "But I did, asking from where you received your ill-founded opinion of Great Britain and her citizens. You have chosen not to respond."
"The comments on this thread speak far more loudly than any further comments I can make; they form an illustrated encyclopedia of anti-Americanism."
So you judge an entire nation by a few posters here? To quote yourself, that's "too absurd". Actually sweetheart, too, too absurd. Take a flight to Britain, it's cheap enough these days, and I feel sure that, despite your anti-British opinions, they'll let you in.
By the way, this blog only shows text, not images. If you can't debate rationally, don't debate at all.
Complain about this comment
As an American I honestly wish we had a more European view of things. Currently we are a nation where neo-Nazis can parade through Jewish districts legally and the Ku Klux Klan can hold demonstrations. I somehow doubt this was the freedom of speech the original writers of the Constitution had in mind.
Complain about this comment
I do not understand why Michael Savage Is On This List, I listen to him from time to time and he is miles away from some of the others on the ban list, This is totally insane,
1. Like him or not, he does not advocate violence of any sort.
2.Does he get animated? Yes, but that doesn't amount to inciting violence.
I wonder if the Home Secretary has even listened to a single show of his or is she just relying on second hand information.
Britain does have those pesky libel laws and Michael is seriously thinking about suing her personally for defamation and a ton of British Lawyers are just itching to represent him. It seems like she should have done her homework before including him on the list.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
#293. MarcusAureliusII: "If you want to know which nation really has freedom of speech, just watch any session of the British House of Commons and it doesn't have to be PMQT either. Hundreds of howling idiots shout down anyone and everyone who wants to speak including the prime minister of the nation."
Since there are 646 MPs, rarely all in attendance, you must have forgotten that there is a Speaker who controls which member is called to address the body. These are not "howling idiots" but elected representatives from each constituency. More countries emulate the Westminster Model than the American Congressional model - because it serves the purpose more effectively. Belittling the Mother of Parliaments does nothing to assist your arguments, but further shows how irrational you are.
Incidentally, with regard to spelling, even within the UK there are regional variations - cyder denotes a different area in which the alcoholic beverage is produced and called cider. So it is with Scotch and other whiskies.
Complain about this comment
Well well well! What goes around comes around huh? Kind of puts the whole Russell Brand appearance at the VMA's last year which had some Americans wrongly up in arms, and the whole of the British isles up in arms over the discovery that those Americans, while who's reactions were totally uncalled for and the pinical of immaturity, were nevertheless I believe rightfully so somewhat offended at Brand's comments (compounded by the fact that he delivered them on an American TV channel at said channel's invatation) in perspective doesn't it?
An article written at the time, and refferenced on this blog as the view held by the majority of Britains on this incident by a London Times columnest had, upon examining the fall out from this latest exchange of controvertial citizens of our two "great" countries, produced a passage which struck me particularly hard. And it is the following:
"The whole episode is like a parable about the differences between the US and the UK: so much common ground and yet such oceans between us. It isnt about whether you find Brand funny or not: theres always the off switch. Its about the peculiar contradictions that seem to define modern America: the love of free speech and pride in democracy, coupled with bottomless abuse for anyone who has the temerity to voice dissent. The devotion to the flag, in people who strike some of us as trying their hardest to make the world dislike America."
Replace "Brand" with "Savage," and this exact paragraph could very well have been written about the people who think Savage should be banned from the UK by a New York Times, or Washington Post opinion columnest as well!! So I suppose the dicotomy that once uniquely defined the United States of America no longer defines it does it? It defines Great Britain as well doesn't it? So I suppose that America isn't the only country forced, in this new "global society" in which we find ourselves, to learn to live with people of every stripe, every extreme, every asociation calling it home. To recognize that the only thing all these people have in common is a document, 11 pages long, written up a little over 200 years ago. Great Britain must face this unpleasant fact, and every "contridiction" that goes along with it as well. The simple hard truth is, if you're going to be a nation that welcomes people from all over the world and from all walks of life, than you're going to have to deal with the conciquences, good or bad, of that decision. Just as individual people must deal with the conciquences of every decision they make in their individual lives, so too must nations. We can't have our cake and eat it too. And the conclusion that can unmistakeably be drawn from these incidents, is that the United States and the United Kingdom have more in common than we care to admit. Painful, but true. And you know what they say? The truth shall set you "free."
PS. The rest of the India Knight piece, should you feel so inclined, is here.
Complain about this comment
Canard
Every time I've seen them, they looked and sounded like a pack of howling idiots to me. Maybe you didn't have the sound turned up when you watched them. It's hard for me to believe these are grown men and women...or that they are even sober.
"you must have forgotten that there is a Speaker who controls which member is called to address the body."
Now that's a laugh. AWDA! AWDA! We'd all like to hear what the prime minister has to say. Mr. Prime Minister...I refer the right honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago. (Now wasn't that enlightening? Like something out of Kafka.)
"Belittling the Mother of Parliaments does nothing to assist your arguments"
So it's Parliaments that that gaggle is the "mother" of :-) And you wonder why I don't take Britain or Europe seriously.
Complain about this comment
Canard;
Since these MPs who know each other clearly have no respect for each other, why should I have respect for any of them? Not only don't they show them any respect for other MPs personally, they don't even respect the fact that they represent their constituents. You call that democracy? You call that any sort of fraternity? These people have the maturity and demeanor of an adolescent street gang choosing up sides for a football match. Close your eyes and you'd hear no difference. England may be in bad shape but it's no worse than its ever been. It's just more visible in the information age.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#280 Allmymarbles,
I read the reason for the plane flooding is because the 'switch' closing all outside openings into the compartment of the plane was not thrown by the pilot or co-pilot. The reason being that this line item was at the end of the check-list, which they never completed before being forced to ditch. They were also busy trying to restart the engines and lining up for a water entry while doing the check-list. All of this is going on in just a few minutes. I do not know what contribution opening the back door had, but the plane was going to flood regardless.
Complain about this comment
"Americans are not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded room, but the Times piece is quite right - they have much more freedom of speech in most other areas."
Justin Justin Justin. For someone who has writtin a beautifully acurit and positive, yet not adulatious book about the United States, and who has demonstrated a clear brepth of the knoledge he has aquired in said book and this blog, it absolutely astounds me how utterly ignorant, still, you can be about this country.
Americans are not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded room because doing so could very easily cause chaos to ensue, thereby potencially resulting in wounded and/or perhaps dead. It has nothing to do with limits on freedom of speach. And I'm going to go out on a limb here, and fellow British bloggers please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Britains aren't allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded room either for much the same reasons.
As a few other posters have already pointed out, it is ingrained in the American psychy from a very early age in learning of the constitution etc, that freedoms of any kind come with responsibility, and as long as people know that, they can say anything they like, and do anything they like, provided they don't harm others in the process. So most American's views, I would imagine, are that as long as this Savage fellow doesn't incite violence or hatrid (I.E. the blanks are evil and/or go out and kill all the blanks you can find,) he should be allowed to say what he wants to say. Now I, personally, haven't heard this guy's rants, because I am certain that if I were to I would be very much offended and I've no such desire to be so, but I should expect that the British home secritary has. And if she thinks that he incites hatrid and violence strongly enough that she fears it could cause unrest then perhaps she's right in banning him. People shouldn't jump all over her so quickly. They don't know her. They don't know her fears, her responsibilities, that she must contend with on a daily basis. I emplore you, have a little empathy and objectivity before you judge huh? However on the same tocon, I do know that it is very easy indeed for power to corrupt its beholder, so if she is found to have overstepped her bounds, she must be delt with immediately. The parlamentary oversight comitee should keep a close eye on this.
As for the question of who is freer. Lets see. The US has way too restrictive laws on what can and cannot be shown on prime time TV on non paperview channels and way too often overzellous policemen. But it does seem to have more relaxed laws on free speach.
The UK has a good amount of regulation of what can be shown on prime time mainstream TV and much tamer cops, but it appears that one must be a bit more careful when speacking on its soil.
So which is freer? I think its a draw. Freedom of speach versis freedom of sight. Take your pick.
Complain about this comment
Richard_SM,
Ref. Dave Kopel, 59 Deceits by Michael Moore.
Complain about this comment
325, somehow I doubt that Savage is as amusing as Brand was, but I see the
point. As far as "having a document in common goes," I suppose that the
Brits of the time dismissed it as being of little significance. The reason
that they left was because the colonies cost more to subjugate than they
were worth. There were ports in the Caribbean which, by themselves, were
more valuable than all of North America.
No doubt the Egyptians of 1500 BC dismissed the Jewish revolt as being
of no consequence, much as future generations will forget about Vietnam.
It is true, though, that we must be a difficult people to understand,
because we have Hollywood parading all sorts of false imagery around the
world. Anyone who draws conclusions about the character of a people from
the entertainment business is simply not a very good student.
Complain about this comment
322, granten.
"As an American I honestly wish we had a more European view of things. Currently we are a nation where neo-Nazis can parade through Jewish districts legally and the Ku Klux Klan can hold demonstrations. I somehow doubt this was the freedom of speech the original writers of the Constitution had in mind."
Once we start impinging on the rights of those we disagree with, it will boomerang. Can you imagine HAVING to use politically correct speech? There is already great pressure to do so, and if we give in, we will become a nation of hypocrites. I would rather people were free to speak their minds, even if the views expressed are offensive to many.
Complain about this comment
In Ref. to 322:
Actually, yes, that is the kind of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom to assemble that is guaranteed in the US Constitution. Neither you nor I may like what they espouse, and you may criticism them, but they are exercising their rights, in fact everyone here on this blog is exercising their rights right now. But what is explicitly found in the Constitution is that neither you, nor anyone else, may deprive even the bigoted neo-kkk those rights. Now, you can certainly arrest them for incitement to violence, terrorism, or conspiracy, but until there is enough evidence to get a warrant youre out of luck.
I hate to use the example of David Duke because he is such an embarrassment for my state, but the example is perfect; in the US he is free to "exploit" the rights that our founders gave to all men and women, but in Europe he is where? In a jail cell awaiting trial for his views. I also hate to compare Savage with Duke given that Duke is far more extreme, but are their situations not similar? What might happen if Savage showed up at the London airport? It appears that in most European nations, including the UK, such freedoms as described in the 1st paragraph apply with quite a few more caveats.
Complain about this comment
329. rodidog.
"I read the reason for the plane flooding is because the 'switch' closing all outside openings into the compartment of the plane was not thrown by the pilot or co-pilot. "
I read that they had in fact thrown the switch. And I also read that a passenger panicked and opened the rear door, knocking a stewardess aside to do it. Is it possible that after, congratulating the passengers on their splendid behavior, they revised events somewhat? Then again maybe one of the reports was in error.
Complain about this comment
#326. MarcusAureliusII: "you wonder why I don't take Britain or Europe seriously."
Except for your own opinions, you don't appear to take those of others seriously. If the ways of the House of Commons were good enough for Disraeli, Churchill (who was four years older than yourself when he took office), Thatcher et al, they should be good enough for you. But with your superior ability, of course it isn't. I wonder who history will remember - they or you?
Complain about this comment
332:
I thought it was believed that King George was totally obsessed and went mad over the fact that he "lost" the 13 colonies. The colonies produced all sorts of raw goods to be shipped and manufactured in Britain and was traditionally a good market for British finished products-quite like the relationship of the American South the industrial North before and after the civil war period.
Complain about this comment
337, BEL, you could be right, but my impression is that India was
far more important to the Brits at that time than our part of the world.
For one thing, the population of the US was about 4,000,000 in 1790;
India had a population of approximately 150,000,000 at the time.
The prominence of the US on the world stage is really quite recent.
For example, in 1939 we had a population of about 132,000,000, and
an army the size of Rumania's.
Complain about this comment
#335 allmymarbles,
I'm pretty sure they did not have time to throw the switch. I believe the back door was opened as the plane was already taking on water. Either way, after re-reading a report, it seems a large gash was torn in the underbelly of the plane, so we might both be wrong in what caused the plane to flood. I guess we'll have to wait for the NTSB report.
Complain about this comment
338:
338:
I do not disagree with you, but it is less about the prominence of the 13 colonies on the world stage and more about the immediate political and economic blow to British Empire. The colonial rebellion was the largest of its kind to date at the time and basically ripped half of the empire's North American holdings out of their hands-the Dominion of Canada did not as of yet span the width of the continent. And if Im not mistaken, the Boston tea party was a protest against the empire's dumping of Indian tea in North America-a ploy designed to rescue the East-India Company from bankruptcy. And lastly, the loss in trade from North America caused by the American Revolution led to a severe financial recession in the UK, helped turn the tide of public opinion against King George's war, and later became a post-war depression.
Complain about this comment
340, BEL, I'll have to look into this. From the American side, the primary
post-revolutionary war issue was how to avoid being drawn into the war
between Britain and France, the "superpowers" of the age.
But, again, North America was a side-show for the British. The West Indies
were far more lucrative to them.
Complain about this comment
John Gaunt's support of Free Speech in his Sun newspaper article is no surprise and is much appreciated by anyone in the UK who still believes that open, honest exchange of views is a Right and not ahindrance to Law and Order.
I am old enough to recall 'No Pets and No Blacks' signs in the windows of Houses For Sale and certain Hotels etc.
That crudity and racism is clearly unacceptable and it would be intolerable for any Citizen walking the streets of the UK to be expected to put up with such blatant, ignorant hostility and discrimination.
The American, Mr Savage, has apparently views of fairly similar nature to those long-gone 'signs' above about followers of the Islamic Faith and other extreme views on autism etc.
As the thoroughly unpleasant man has never once uttered a word on any subject within the shores of the British Isles he has presumably been banned from the UK for holding the views?
That is absolutely unacceptable and intolerable: For the UK to refuse entry to someone on grounds of what they may 'think' is the crime in a so-called democracy.
Prof David Irving convicted as a 'Holocaust denier' in another European nation, has not been banned, but, even though his views are rightly condemned it is surely wrong to ban a person for their views?
So, how can Mr Savage, loathesome and mistaken though his views are, be banned from the UK?
It is quite another thing to be banning entry to the UK for someone from an already proscribed organisation such as Hamas, Tamil Tigers, FARC etc.
whose terrorist activities inc. fund-raising and recruiting clearly are a threat to the safety and security of general UK public.
Home Secretary Jacquie Smith should rescind this order against Mr Savage or resign her post for displaying unacceptable and intolerable hostile discrimination against a member of the public.
Complain about this comment
41. At 02:20am on 09 May 2009, McJakome2 wrote:
"Yes, it's scary living in a country where you can be arrested and thrown into jail simply because a cop is having a bad day."
I don't think the authors of this and other like minded posts actually know the US well. We don't have national police, and even state by state local jurisdictions differ. So these broad statements are obviously false. I've lived in various jurisdictions in the US for 60 years and have never [at least since the demos of the 60s and 70s] been afraid of the police. No I am neither wealthy nor a member of the upper crust, just a law abiding citizen. Is the "nothing" for which the alleged persons were "hassled" perhaps possession of cannabis, public indecency or some other indiscrete behaviour that is perhaps not illegal in the culpret's home jurisdiction? I spent the last 8 years making public statements against the president that would have gotten me arrested in a large number of countries, but no official even looked at me crossly. I recently received a ticket from an out of sorts policeman, took it to court and had the judge throw it out.
So tell me, where is this scary totalitarian country I've been reading about located?
Complain about this comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All this just to say "I don't really think about this or know anything"
the posters before you, that slagged off america (sorry it doth offend thee so much but we are free right?)
were all living in america for some time.
but carry on insisting.
every week your TV show proudly display example of how NOT to police for the world to see. The amazing thuung often is is that it is the police officers that are doing the arresting.
Next time If I had been arrested in such a manner I would probably get reall beligerant.
Why comply if they treat you like dirt.
On a random sample I moved to Oregon and found most have the same derisory opinion of the cops (sorry gary really they do (note voted down Justice hall, police stations extra jails and all were forced through DESPITE the free speech and objection and refusal to pay taxes for by the populous.
Ps. I have also had a judge threaten to fine me more if I want to try my case for not using an indicator light(DID )
So frankly lord lord did We offend an america by speaking freely?
Complain about this comment
Rich Sm on press freedoms not being used. Need we have a better example than the whole last 9 years.
from 9/11 on the whole US press has been as stifled as can be.
3122 TIMMMAAAAYYY
Back what was the free speech reference about the post lengths.
How about a game of "how many heads and tails on the ass"
Complain about this comment
298. At 11:40pm on 10 May 2009, smileytm303 wrote:
Numerous Islamic clerics have been banned from the UK for the same reasons as Savage has been banned.
-----
Not only that the words of one British cleric were used on american TV by the CBN to promote the war as justified.
Attack them for saying they will defend their land.
He was so free but a few like him caused the US to invade.
40 marygrav had it right. Britain was attacked because of siding with america who had a leader going on about the weak enemy (before he had won) and crusades.
the guy stirred up the US patriotism AND the terrorist sympathisers.
45 Andy after I was threatened with increased fines if I used my constitutional right to a trial I will poliely remind you that it is not soeasy.
there is an aclu office in salem.(long distance)
your faith in the system is remarkable.
call your Aclu and see how much help you can get.
Not much I expect (or know )
Complain about this comment
bere " They demonstrated at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the young gay man murdered in Laramie, Wyoming several years ago.""
yes anohter shameless example of what happens if you are free in the wrong way in the wrong place in the US can get you killed.
Medford had a lesbian dragged behind a car. case
Freedom MY ASS
Complain about this comment
hell I thought all that talk at the top of the thread on phelps must have been about the OH so free american swimmer that had a free moment and his career slammed for it.
Americans wouldn't know freedom if it rolled them up and smoked them.
Complain about this comment
Was Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez an expression of freedom of speech or incitement of murder?
I disagree with many of Chavez's policies, particularly those influenced by his megalomaniac obsession (Bolivarian revolution) and I consider his rhetoric immature and unbecoming of a president, but calling for the assassination of a foreign leader - or anyone else for that matter - should not be condoned and should not be regarded as a "right" that must be protected.
Calling for assassinations is a criminal act and should not be condoned. Not surprisingly, Mr. Robertson got away with complicity to commit murder with absolute impunity, perhaps, because our interpretation of "rights" and the rationale for what constitutes terrorism depends on who the perpetrators and targets are.
Complain about this comment
Fellow bloggers,
I would suggest to you that the differences between the two nations are well illustrated by the Savage incident, but in an obtuse way.
Both countries treasure freedom of speech. On a group level the UK is far less tolerant of hateful or potentially hateful speech. If you say nasty things about whole groups of people then you may find yourself on the next plane home (and after all, it's their country, they do get to say the rules).
However, on a personal level the Brits do like to mock one another mercilessly. Spend 15 minutes in an office environment or at a dinner and you'll see plenty of examples of 'taking the p!$$', mockery of someone to the point of them losing their temper, but not quite.
The Brits are also far more free to criticize authority. Here, we almost automatically give folks respect because of their title. In the UK the press and individual citizens are far more cynical and question more. Hence you can compare an unpopular PM (Brown) who is called to account and quizzed once a week by the peoples representatives with an unpopular President who allowed folks to ask questions once a year or so, on his terms.
Then take Marcus. In the US we respect his right to not understand Hansard, his right to make that publicly visible and his right to obnoxious about being ignorant. He has a right to think written speeches and needing to be protected from criticism by your peers is a sign of strength. He has a right to hide behind teacher. In the UK he would be mocked to the point of a breakdown. Here we just smile and tolerate him, let him feel he is important while ignoring him.
Both countries are as free as each other, they just express it in different ways. Where that freedom is derived from is a different story.
Citizen Sam
Complain about this comment
Roxana Saberi is going to be released from jail within the next couple of hours and deported.
Complain about this comment
334 bienvenue
"It appears that in most European nations, including the UK, such freedoms as described in the 1st paragraph apply with quite a few more caveats."
And rightly so, as there is a subtle and undefinable line between what can legally be proven as incitement to hatred/violence etc, and what can be reasonably seen to be unacceptable - ie disseminating the idea that prejudices are acceptable, because someone on the radio is saying it.
I generally fall on the side of letting the extremists and lunatics speak, as their own words often defeat them. However many people listening simply get reinforcement for their own unpleasant views.
I have no answer to the issue, except that a happy medium between the lax rule of the USA and the over-zealous interpretation in the UK .... overseen by someone sensible!!! if we can find someone sensible that is.
For the record I do not believe that Michael Savage should be banned from the UK .... it was almost certainly a piece of politically correct brinkmanship by Jacqui Smith in an attempt to have some non-muslims on the list, and to divert attention from her 2nd home expenses and her husband's porn habit.
Complain about this comment
Canard
"If the ways of the House of Commons were good enough for Disraeli, Churchill (who was four years older than yourself when he took office), Thatcher et al, they should be good enough for you."
They aren't. When the tea was thrown in Boston Harbor, it was symbolic of throwing out the British Crown and the British Parliament. Read the Declaration of Independence and you will see a detailed account of how it failed to protect the rights of people who considered themselves British citizens in America. The British Parliament is a joke compared to the Congress of the United States, the greatest deliberative body in the world. Parliament is by contrast a rubber stamp whose deliberations usually amount to nothing.
"But with your superior ability, of course it isn't. I wonder who history will remember - they or you?"
The answer could hardly be more obvious. America will be remembered as the greatest invention in human history. It's struggle to come into existance and survive over impossible adversity the triumph of the human spirit. It's rise from total obscurity to become the most important civilization in human history the story of how the genius of the American experiment manifested itself. Britain will be remembered as being for a time the most powerful of a group of small nations that gained their wealth by military conquest and enslavement of one quarter of the world's population and land. When that conquest was overturned and Britain was forced to rely on its own resources, it was reduced to the small island nation of minor importance it actually should have remained all along. The same for its continental counterparts.
NoRashDecisions;
Justin Webb has repeatedly demonstrated here that despite his time in America, he has no real understanding of it, his knowledge and insight are shallow, superficial, trite. This puts him in good company with the rest of BBC and most of the outside world in general.
You are correct about the responsibilities of freedom. It is the responsibility to be willing to fight to defend it and possibly die just as others have fought and died to gain it for you. This is something most of the rest of the world doesn't understand either. Britian only enjoys what freedom it has because the People of the United States were willing to fight and die for theirs on at least 3 occasions where Americans made a major sacrifices on their behalf when they couldn't or wouldn't. Given how little today's Brits know about it, how ungrateful they are, how unwilling to even recognize it when the facts are pointed out to them, I have to wonder if it wasn't a tragic mistake on America's part. Had 20th century Presidents not ignored President Washington's warnings, Britain would have succumbed to Germany twice, the USSR once. I find these people and their nation, their continent repugnant. How nice to be able to shoot verbal arrows back at their direction having seen the unanswered hail of them they've hurled our way for so long and for no good reason. I'd cut off all relations with all of them if it were up to me.
Complain about this comment
Having lived many years in both the US and the UK (and elsewhere), I realise that everybody thinks their country is the freest.
We are free to be loudly pro-communist in China, but not Europe; atheist in the UK, but not the US; anti-gay in the US, but not the UK. Does free mean I wont be arrested? That is how Americans define it. Or does it also require that my neighbours will still talk to me and my employer promote me?
In decades of living in the US, I have never dared tell anybody that I have never belonged to any religion, a triviality in the UK. How free am I just because nobody would arrest me? I dont feel free.
Complain about this comment
Ref # 293 MarcusAurelius O
MA wrote:"Now compare that to what civilized people do."
No doubt a book will be written comparing the "civilized" legal system she experienced in Iran to that of the "uncivilised" American system, by the American-Iranian journalist just released on Appeal. A two year suspended sentence for spying. Not bad. :-)))
Why doesn't Obama send some Senators over to Iran to see what they can learn?
Complain about this comment
338 and 341 Guns
Your point on the relative value of colonies is well taken.
At one point the island of Guadeloupe was considered to be of significantly more value and general desirability than the entire watershed of the St. Lawrence river and the French territories touching the Gulf of St. Lawrence - i.e., most of eastern Canada, a good portion of what was once the "Northwestern" US, namely Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Complain about this comment
"He is not without his supportes back at home."
This is a typical method BBC uses to tell lies, by distorting the truth. From that statement you'd think about 600 loonies listen to him but in fact millions of ordinary Americans listen regularly to his syndicated radio program which is heard all across America (I am not one of them, I don't listen to talk radio at all. Never thought much of the genre.) I'll bet his audience in the United States is many times larger than BBC's. I suppose BBC has its supporters back home too but I can hardly tell why. Prehaps if they had a competitive alternative with equal resources to their own, they might have fewer supporters than they do. But they enjoy a quasi monopoly akin to what Pravda, Radio Moscow, and Radio Albania enjoyed in their domestic markets during the cold war.
Complain about this comment
@351 (RomeStu): "...there is a subtle and undefinable line between what can legally be proven as incitement to hatred/violence etc, and what can be reasonably seen to be unacceptable...". Ohhh, how right you are!
I draw a bright line between speech and other actions. Regardless of what some other person says, I am ALWAYS responsible for MY OWN ACTIONS. If I hear someone (or a lot of someones) calling for me to kill this person or that, as long as I don't decide to act, no harm ensues except the person calling on me to kill someone is wasting his breath. If I choose to act, who's responsible? The guy who called on me to kill someone? Or me? Well, I AM, because I chose to do the deed! My trying to blame someone else only means that I'm unwilling to admit that I didn't have myself under control.
For that reason I take a pretty dim view of the charge of "incitement to riot". Charging someone with that really means that the authorities don't want to hold the lynch mob squarely accountable for whatever evil they've done (usually because they are "respectable").
As I noted a long time ago, the reason the "fire in the movie theater" example is unique is because what's being triggered is an essentially-involuntary fight-or-flight reaction in an essentially-confined space. The involuntary nature of this is what sets it apart. There's no way an honest person can equate that with slower-moving incitement to do physical harm based on racial, religious, or sexual drivers.
The "hate speech" laws floating around this and other countries, and the nonsense in front of the UN regarding making criticism of religion illegal, are altogether an abomination, because they are at their root attempting to put the state's power behind one ideology or another. In every case they will wind up hurting more than they help, and will either be repealed after incorrectly damaging a lot of people, or will not be repealed and will incorrectly damage even more people. As a Christian, I might even benefit from the UN law if it made it illegal for folks to criticize Christianity, or Christ; however, I would vehemently oppose such a law precisely because it attempts to muzzle folks' hearts.
In short, I'm happy with allowing the partisans of all stripes to spew whatever nonsense they wish, whether the words hurt me or not. Sometimes they need to be ignored (and "free speech" doesn't ever guarantee an audience). Sometimes they need to be remonstrated with. Sometimes they need to be firmly opposed with other speech, and with the rejection of the community at large. The state needs to continue to remind the citizenry that regardless of what anyone says, each citizen is still responsible for what he or she DOES. But don't put the state in the position of deciding what kinds of speech are acceptable, and what kinds aren't, or inevitably such ability will be used for less-and-less honorable purposes. Human nature guarantees it.
Complain about this comment
316 MK
319 Richard SM
Magic, much as I like John McCain, it is really, really improbable that he would be doing better overall than President Obama. You need to take the blinkers off.
Richard, on the subject of crashing four times and being shot down in the first month:
You need to read "The Right Stuff" by Tom Wolfe.
In that era, and before, crashing military aricraft in training incidents was remarkably common. In the earliest times, both Manfred von Richtofen (many crashes, shot down 81 aircraft, leading ace of WWI) and Billy Bishop (11 crashes, shot down 72(?) aircraft, leading Canadian pilot of WWI) were notorious for destroying government property. Even Erich Hartmann (1405 sorties, 352 aircraft shot down, totals unlikely ever to be matched) bailed out something like 14 times (+/-).
During the Battle of Britain, as far as I am aware, far more British aircraft were destroyed in training accidents than in action against the Germans, and I believe more pilots were killed in training accidents than in battle.
The infant mortality rate of pilots on high performance military aircraft has always been high. It is is one reason why there are now very successful companies (CAE for example) that build extremely sophisticated flight simulators.
As for only being there a month, well, that seems a bit improbable.
John McCain was on his 23rd mission when he was shot down. 23 missions in a month would be a lot. In WWII first 25 mission, and then later 30 missions were considered a full tour of duty for a bomber pilot, after which they could go home. It would have taken an average bomber pilot in WWII half a year or more to have served on this many missions. This makes the 171 (?) missions of Guy Gibson, and a similar or perhaps greater number by Leonard Cheshire quite remarkable, and Hartmann's totals almost unimaginable.
You can criticize John McCain for lots of things, but criticizing his service record, no, I don't think so. Please keep in mind that when you try to diminish his service record you are also implicitly diminishing the record of all those who served. Lots of us are uncomfortable with that. The smearing of John Kerry was much the same thing. These are perfectly decent men who put their lives on the line in the service of their country. Neither they nor any others who served, deserve to be smeared as they have been. Not fair.
Complain about this comment
It is typical of British "journalists" and British contributors to these blog sites to have taken such a complex issue as freedom of speech which the US Supreme Court has agonized over so many times for so long and turned it into a simpleminded farsical exchange summed up in the title of this blog entry and so many British posters. The limits of speech in the United States have been long debated, carefully thought out and rethought and the current laws are the best our top legal minds can come up with after just slightly over 200 years of thinking about it. I don't know how much thought has been given to it in the UK but it doesn't seem like much. It seems to be up to the whims of the politicians of the moment. One more reason why Britain is not to be taken seriously.
Complain about this comment
278 diana, 253 MAII and 263 Publius all make different parts of the same point on free speech.
The US does not have a big public broadcaster like the Beeb, CBC/SRC, or Australian Broadcasting. This is a huge de facto threat to freedom of speech.
Why?
Because commercial broadcasters have no interest in offending their advertisers, their advertisers' customers, or their owners. So a whole slice of the spectrum of political views is very rarely aired on commercial television.
One of the things that is quite funny is that some posters here refer to President Obama as a socialist. In almost any other western democracy he would be regarded as someone firmly in the middle of the road, sometimes slightly to the right of center.
Yet in the US he is regarded as being on the far left of the spectrum, simply because the left end of the spectrum has been effectively truncated in American broadcasting. Yes, you can point to counter examples, but they are few and far between. On a representative survey of American TV, the political spectrum stops in the center.
That national public health care is considered "socialism", or "godless socialism" ... Every other western country has figured out how to provide public healthcare. None of the systems are perfect, but, by and large, they work ok. Only the US, because of special interest groups and scare mongering, has failed to find a solution..
Complain about this comment
Which brings me to MAII and Publius.
The threat to freedom of speech in the US is not so much government action, but the almost total reliance on commercial broadcasting to deliver public affairs programming.
Marcus, you owe your life to a man you may not particularly care for: Ralph Nader.
A case can be made that Ralph Nader has saved more lives, and done more to prevent permanent, disabling injuries than any other American who has ever lived. Certainly, for a non-government actor his lifetime achievement in this regard is hard to match.
He was not funded by anybody. He fought a very lonely fight. He did so on the basis of strong personal conviction. His book "Unsafe at Any Speed" was, and is, a landmark (ever try to find a copy in a public library? Almost always missing.)
He was smeared relentlessly.
GM tried to entrap him with prostitutes.
GM eventually had to pay the then largest punitive award in a defamation case in US history.
This is a matter of public record.
A lesser man would not have stuck to it. GM, then the largest industrial enterprise on the planet, employed its entire ability to squelch this man's views. That he succeeded nonetheless is not much short of miraculous. That is a very real threat to freedom of speech. There are plenty of current day examples.
Makes you wonder, though, where GM would be now if they had taken his criticisms to heart, rather than fighting kicking and screaming every step of the way.
And before those of us with a British legal tradition become too smug, consider that libel chill is a bigger problem in the UK than in America.
Protection of fair comment freedom of speech, not merely political free speech but also in commercial free speech is of very great importance.
Complain about this comment
Uh, Marcus, the current situation isn't the best. I'd go with an old SC Justice, now deceased, who said that "No law means no law". And allow students to speak out in school, and for people to protest around abortion clinics, presidents and funerals. As a protester from my own state said, "I'm in a free speech zone. It's called America."
Oh, as for your calls to investigate the South Ossetia War? Most of the investigators have found that:
-Georgia attacked the de facto independent South Ossetia first. (South Ossetia and Abkhazia issued their own stamps since at least 1995... top that, Kosovo!)
-Georgia acted with reckless disregard for civilians.
-As for Russia's "invasion" of Georgia, they liberated occupied territory, ruined the Georgian armed forces and withdrew. Sounds a lot like Desert Storm to me...
-Mikhail Saakashvili is quite unpopular at home now, after starting a war, attacking unarmed protesters, shutting down opposition media, etc.
Lastly, pretty soon a lot of prominent Americans may not be traveling to the UK, since they're likely to face extradition to Spain for trial on torture charges. (Gracias, Senor Garzon!)
Complain about this comment
And finally, on reasonable limits to free speech:
Over the weekend, an group of protesters carrying the flags of an internationally identified terrorist group, a group known for its ruthlessness and barbarity, puts women and children on a six lane freeway to block traffic, in a country on the other side of the earth, that has nothing to do with its civil war, and screams genocide.
Some nerve. This is a group that has killed thousands, without the slightest qualms. The killing would stop if one man would simply surrender. But instead thousands of civilians are trapped in a free-fire zone. They would leave if not terrified out of their wits by their own side. Some genocide.
This isn't freedom of speech. It is an abuse of the hospitality and tolerance of a host nation. Perhaps the police will lay serious criminal charges.
Complain about this comment
Ref 359. MAII
You remind me of a quote from Soren Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher.
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
Complain about this comment
america the more free.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incarceration_rates_worldwide.gif
Free to speak but don't do anything.
Freedom of speech is not the ONLY freedom.
How many days paid holiday from the job do Americans get on the whole. Not you with juicy contracts ther est of america.
look at it. levels of time off holiday vacation days that are real low.
IF you get any.
Most of the time at the poor end of the economy a day off is a day off earning.
Free?
In jail or slaving at some nice long hours to get the wages to pay the healthcare for the kids.
no time off.
Butt free.
Complain about this comment
335, allmymarbles -
Several days after the event, I read an article that contained many comments from passengers describing bad behavior of some passengers (one woman made a fuss about getting her luggage into a lifeboat, whereupon another passenger, good for him, took it from her and threw it into the river; people not allowing a woman carrying a young child primary access to a lifeboat) so it doesn't seem as if these reports were suppressed.
Complain about this comment
# 286 TimothyR444 wrote:
"For an American, Moore's persona is in itself an absurd joke: he is a very wealthy and influential man who portrays himself as a "regular guy" and dresses up in "ordinary man proletariat" get-up - a ridiculous performance that might convince Europeans but is utterly preposterous to us."
I have no very strong views on Moore. I've never seen any of his films, even though some have been on TV - in particular the one on healthcare was recommended to me by a very intelligent American friend. At least one of the reasons I have not watched them is that I've seen too many reports of his twisting the truth - so even if there is a lot of truth in his films [and I don't know if there is] I'd have to try to determine which of his 'facts' I could rely on.
Having said that - I had a quick look at his Wiki entry. While it refers to the criticisms that have been made of him, I was especially interested in the commercial success of his films. Eg "At the box office, Fahrenheit 9/11 remains the highest-grossing documentary of all time, taking in close to US$200 million worldwide, including United States box office revenue of US$120 million." And "He is the director and producer of Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko, three of the top five highest-grossing documentaries of all time".
Now - commercial success is no guarantee of accuracy or quality. But what especially intrigued me is that TimothyR444 announces "For an American, Moore's persona is in itself an absurd joke" and "...a ridiculous performance that might convince Europeans but is utterly preposterous to us."
So clearly Tim, when you claim to speak for 'Americans', you are of course simply speaking for Americans who agree with you. And not eg for the ones who paid US$120 million to watch just one of Moore's films.
And in fact this practice of deducing that the views of some represent the views of all goes a long way towards explaining why practically every one of your postings is dedicated to how nasty Europeans are all horrid to poor little Americans - with scant evidence ever provided.
Complain about this comment
FREEDOM These folk had something to say abut their freedom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1QnVBjwLQ0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHXZmLkI5p8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_F5IV-e7tY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cklsv0AK6w8&feature=related
now this song seems about freedom;)
but just listen . they don't say the WEED word.
censor ship no. voluntary censorship cause otherwise no radio time.
Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Complain about this comment
# 293 MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"If you want to know which nation really has freedom of speech, just watch any session of the British House of Commons and it doesn't have to be PMQT either. Hundreds of howling idiots shout down anyone and everyone who wants to speak including the prime minister of the nation."
Etc
Etc
Etc
Etc
Etc
Well I never - a lecture from MAII on good manners and politeness.
Mr Pot - meet Mr Kettle
Complain about this comment
Those who say public discourse is monopolized by commercial broadcasters in the US ignore NPR/PBS, C-SPAN, and of course BBC which Americans mostly and IMO rightly ignore. BBC has proven a very unreliable source of the truth about what is happening for many reasons. For one, it almost always gives no background in which to put news events in context for its audience. This means that unless you stay familiar with every arcane point of every local situation in the world, you have no way to understand what a news event means and BBC is free to spin it in whatever direction its reporters and editors choose to see fit. Example, its clearly biased reporting of the war between Israel and Lebanon several years ago and its aftermath.
Ralph Nader was a brave and pioneering crusader for exposing dangerous and defective products, especially in the automobile industry. His book "Unsafe at Any Speed" was a landmark. What posters here refuse to recognize is that many of their own cars were also just as unsafe as the Chevy Corvair, many even more so than American cars. For example, the Volkswagon Beetle was probably the most dangerous car on American roads. It had a propensity to turn over all by itself in the wind and weight distribution caused by its rear engine made it vulnerable to being flipped over in certain types of rear end collisions. Most European cars could not be sold in the US because of inadequate safety features such as not having safety plate glass in all windows. Therefore, those European manufacturers who wanted to export to the US had to produce special export models that complied with US safety and pollution emissions standards.
GM is in trouble for several reasons. It has given generous allowances to its retirees for medical insurance that adds $3000 to the price tag of each car it sells. It has also catered to the American market's recent desire for larger, more powerful, more spacious SUVs and light trucks that were more profitable in preference to small economical cars that had little profit per unit sold, and that Americans didn't like. That became a liability when the price of gasoline soared last year. Now the economic downturn and inability to get loans to finance cars has hurt it badly. But it's hardly alone. Toyota just announced not only its worst quarter ever but greater losses than even GM. Fortunately for Toyota, it has a large bank account war chest to weather the storm. Will the government allow GM to go bankrupt? We'll see but Obama's constituents include many blue collar workers in car manufacturing towns like Detroit. Letting that happen would make them very angry and in just three years, he'll have to face them at the polls again.
Complain about this comment
My understanding of free speech is that you wont be raided at night and thrown in Jail for expressing a view contrary to that of the government.
However you will be judged harshly if you say anything contrary to that of popular opinion.
Try telling an american who opposed the iraq war publicly how free they were back in 2003. Even the police officers would harass them. They represent the state. What a difference from today, its the complete opposite.
Free is relative and is always based on the current mood of the general population. Today your free speech may get you on a no fly list like some journalists who apparently did their jobs too well.
The country was also free when people were being black listed for being a commy or saying something good about one,when black's couldnt vote, when gays get kicked out of the military for admitting they are gay and so on( right thats still happening).
The word freedom is thrown around so much that most of us take it for granted and do not know it truly means.
Complain about this comment
ref #367
Johnny you contiually use Wiki as your source.
Considering the fraud and the pc moderators on it, can you provide a less biased source? Say the Economist which is a left leaning magazine.
Complain about this comment
42 usually catches up with bad cops.
what faith man.
the cop that pulled me for sqaut all , who I was ready to face in court before the judges said the cop could raise my fine if I did contest.
I suspect other cops get treated the same by the judge.
There is no come uppence.
Indeed last year a boy 16 with prescriptions was shot dead by eugene cops.
MUM had phoned the cops because he was unruly.
they turn up ,he has a knife more danger to himself as long as everyone is kept back right?) Mum's worr5ied that sonny might hurt self. AND THE COPS SHOOT HIM.
Many bullets.
THEN THEY GIVE ONE OF THE COPS THAT SHOT A MEDAL FOR EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr. Webb,
I am sorry to hear that you are leaving soon. Are you going to swap job with Mark or is it just him coming to the US? It would be fun to read your comments on EU politics.
Thanks for this great blog!
Complain about this comment
Free speech and freedom in both countries depends on the colour of your skin to predict how free one person is to another! fact! from the small hick town where a playground fight ends up with black youths being tried for attemted murder and the self styled Racist Institute of the MET Police!
Complain about this comment
" that reason I take a pretty dim view of the charge of "incitement to riot". "
Arclight.
really ?
if your kid was killed by a mob that disappears when the cops turn up and they show film of a guy saying "rape and kill that girl" you would let him go?
Complain about this comment
John-in-Dublin
The reward for exercising the right of free speech in Ireland is...having to vote for the Lisbon treaty until you get it right. Freedom of speech isn't the only criteria for democracy. When your politicians and the EU get done with you, abortion on demand will be legal in Ireland just like it is everywhere else in the EU. And don't let those so called opt out red lines fool you. Read them carefully. The ones advertised for the UK actually were only 5 year delays after which unlimited penalties could be inflicted on the UK if they didn't comply with the full provisions of the treaty. Ireland is now a captive nation. It collected money from richer EU nations when it was relatively poorer, now it's Ireland's turn to subsidize bridge and highway construction in Hungary among other projects just like Germany does.
Complain about this comment
Ref 358 Interestedforeigner
Ref your point about John McCain "As for only being there a month, well, that seems a bit improbable." I stand by what I wrote. Here are the facts I have:
John McCain joined the US Naval Academy, but quickly developed a reputation for not conforming to rules or orders. "Disruptive. Arrogant. Always partying, often absent." He did not take well to superior officers teaching, describing it later, "It was bull___, and I resented the hell out of it". His trainers commented on his unwillingness to listen to advice, "Reckless and disregards safety." Many crew members disliked him on the carriers for repeatedley endangering life. He eventuially graduated from Naval Academy fifth from bottom, 894th out of 899.
Whether it was the fact his father was a high ranking Admiral in the Navy, also his grandfather, that he felt he was above the rules or simply part of his character is arguable.
McCain crashed jet number one when he lost track of his speed and plunged his plane into Corpus Christi Bay, sinking to the bottom.
His second plane was lost after recklessly flying too low and hitting some power lines across Spain, causing a power cut to the local inhabitants.
McCain's third crash three occurred when he decided to use a Navy trainer to fly to Philadelphia for a football game and slammed the plane into a clump of trees on the way back.
After getting married, he was assigned to the USS Forrestal carrier on 25 July 1967. On the 4th day after arriving for Vietnam operations, whilst seated in his cockpit waiting his turn to take-off, rockets were accidentally fired, setting fire to 20 planes leading to many explosions, killing 130 sailors, and nearly sinking the whole aircraft carrier. That was the end of McCains fourth plane.
McCain was sent back on home leave for two months. On 30 September 1967 he was sent back out to Vietnam to join the Oriskany. He was shot down above Vietnam on 26 October 1967.
30 September to 26 October. I make that 26 days. Add the 4 days if you like from the USS Forrestal. That makes 30 days. Or one month.
Complain about this comment
@360 (Interested): I have to disagree with your position to some extent.
On the one hand, there's no question that in times past the BBC, VOA, Radio Netherlands, and other int'l broadcasters provided useful perspectives that were not available through commercial services. It was particularly useful to listen to the variety of viewpoints during the Iranian hostage crisis 30 years ago.
It's also true that commercial services have always existed primarily to deliver audiences to advertizers. As such their program material reflected that goal.
All this being said, however, it's no longer true (at least to me) that government-sponsored news outlets have any greater claim to accuracy or completeness than commercial entities. The same kinds of pressures (to please those controlling the funds) exist. What has changed in both the commercial and the government cases is the unwillingness of those controlling the funds to value objective journalism above either profits or political influence, and to ensure that the folks actually doing the work value it that way as well.
That's just another problem of the human heart.
As an aside, in this country the Smith-Mundt Act supposedly prohibits any government-sponsored international broadcasting from being targeted at or seeking a domestic audience. As is the case with so many other acts, this one was abused to ensure that VOA was unhelpful to anyone in the US who actually thought that their program material was useful and who wanted more information.
Only semi-related: Is there anyone here besides yours truly that at one time enjoyed listening to international SW radio?
Complain about this comment
Ref 370 MarcusAureliusII
As far as retirement benefits are concerned; keep in mind that there were two parties sitting at the table that signed those contracts. They have themselves to blame for not doing their math well. A contract is null and void if obtained by coersion. They chose to ink their signatures on the bottom line of the labor contracts.
I'll add that the SUV market was intentionally developed by the 'Big Three' US automakers to thumb their noses at the government mandates to improve fuel economy and safety in passenger vehicles. Light trucks (SUV's) do not have the same fuel economy and safety mandates as automobiles. The early truck models had only the most basic safety features and no restrictions on fuel economy. Airbags were not even an option. Also, the high center of gravity and front-loaded weight distribution makes SUV's vulnerable to 'fish-tailing' and extremely prone to roll-over accidents, even at low speeds.
"We the people..." bought into the very slick marketing of these gas-guzzling, unsafe vehicles without remembering that it was the gas-guzzlers of the 60's and 70's that brought us to our knees in 1974. Foreign automotive companies jumped on the marketing band wagon and built SUV's specifically for the US market, adding to the energy bubble.
Obviously "We the people..." needed another spanking with a gas hose to remember the error of our ways. Now we're pointing fingers at everyone but ourselves and crying over our troubles...again.
Another example of the conscequences paid when uninformed voters go to the polls and cast their ballots blindly in loyal support of either political party.
Complain about this comment
Ref #360. Interestedforeigner
I agree with your point about Ralph Nader. General Motors did indeed try to wreck his whole life and career because his campaigning was threatening their own objectives. They hired an 'expensive woman' to get him into a compromising position. GM's strategy at that time, was to manipulate the market and the public, not to build better cars. I doubt their thinking has changed much and shows just what goes on in the big corporations. There are plenty of other examples, Enron, Carlyle, Halliburton, Rumsfeld's sweetener company.
Complain about this comment
moderate observer;
Back in ye good olde days not so very long ago, Brits had the freedom of speech to blatantly post signs saying "No Coloureds" whenever and wherever they chose to which was frequent and widespread. When do you think Britain will get its first Black Prime Minister and catch up with America, around 3009?
Complain about this comment
I think both the US and UK are countries where people enjoy freedom of speech, but there are different conceptions of what that freedom means and where the reasonable boundaries lie. There's also a difference between official freedom of speech and common practice.
In the States, "freedom of speech" is a constitutional guarantee that journalists and critics of the government may speak out about their disagreement with government policies or officials without fear of retribution. In common practice, most Americans understand "freedom of speech" to mean they can say whatever they please to anyone they choose at any time, with a few exceptions such as the oft-cited "don't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater."
That isn't really what it means, though. If you insult someone grievously, you run the risk they will "express themselves on yo ass." You might then be able to whine about freedom of speech, but your broken nose will still hurt; and it was your own choice.
Another form of "common practice" with regard to freedom of speech is the notion of "political correctness." That isn't a question of law, and yet it carries very strong force in our society for preventing people from expressing opinions freely.
On the other hand, so-called "hate speech" laws in the UK restrict people's ability to speak out about perfectly legitimate matters, including organized groups that are associated with global terrorism. That sort of "protection" appears counter-productive from this American's point of view.
So, both are free countries, but the word has different meaning in each.
Complain about this comment
" It works quite well, he gets to vent and I get to go along none the wiser."
And hitler made it to power that way.
sorry but
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/10/ED9J17HA7P.DTL
How many did Hitler Kill?
Or did he just exercise his "free speech".
Complain about this comment
For all the american "freepress"
how come there was no show like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by43joQLYj8
Freeedom.
Complain about this comment
#349: I was wondering at which point, and wearing what hat, Sam would enter the conversation. Overall, I think that's a fair classification, though I must say that there is a decent amount of criticism and scrutiny thrown at individuals across the spectrum in American society as well.
Granted, I get that you were making a largely personal, cultural comparison between the UK and the US, and one which is largely accurate, but I've got to point to the very existence of shows like The Daily Show and the Colbert Report as relatively visible examples of critique, though they package it as 'satire' and 'comedy'. I used these examples specifically because they, generally, tend to cater to (Using Bill O'Reilly's blatant overgeneralization) 'stoned slackers'; more accurately that their audience is less a specifically politically-minded crowd (as one would expect watches C-SPAN, or even any of the general mass news outlets). As such, unfortunate as it may be, I'd venture to say a decent chunk of the people in their targeted demographic won't get their news or political opinions from another source. In this case, much of the network satire and criticism gets transferred into the public.
I'm not claiming either show is the paragon of reporting, or that they're indescriminate in who they decide to pick apart, but I'd also say they're not exactly quiet or reserved towards the people they criticize on the basis of their titles alone. I'd actually be inclined to say that they've been perhaps more critical than a majority of the news organizations, even the BBC itself.
I'd say Bush is probably one of the greatest examples in American history (my own view colored by the fact that I wasn't alive for any President pre-Reagan) of a public figure being characterized, satirized and largely barbecued for his own inadequecies.
I can honestly say that, while I have a number of friends from the UK, and that I've been there before, I don't honestly know what their criticism or derision entails. It may be completely different, or it may be that their criticism actually leads to the officials in place being questioned and held accountable for its actions.
In regards to individuals though, while we may allow Marcus his right to speak, and I think a few people have questioned the benefit of that, I can't rightly say I haven't seen him 'mocked'. Indeed, there's been quite a bit of mocking, some even coming from you, however well written and largely impersonal (IE, more ordered to the nature of his posts rather than to his nature specifically). I don't think there's really been a lack of Americans either apologizing for his views or directly calling him out on them; if you there is, I'll add my own in there for whatever it's worth.
My point: While it may appear as though there is a difference, perhaps it's really in how much actually reaches the members of government and to what extent they're held accountable to the derision and concerns of the public rather than whether or not the public actually offers any.
Complain about this comment
108 Timmmaayyy
I have a thought to share.
"Get lost MATT we don't believe you"
Complain about this comment
S&M
"His second plane was lost after recklessly flying too low and hitting some power lines across Spain, causing a power cut to the local inhabitants."
That's nothing. One day the USAF nearly accidentally blew half of Spain off the face of the earth. What's one minor local power outage by comparison?
http://www.rense.com/general45/drop.htm
The US made a heroic effort to contain and clean up the mess. I'm sure we'd do the same if we accidently dropped for hydrogen bombs on Britain and they didn't detonate. Of course if they had...well, the size of the cleanup would have been an entirely different story :-)
Complain about this comment
# 372 MagicKirin wrote:
"ref #367/Johnny [sic] you contiually [sic] use Wiki as your source./Considering the fraud and the pc moderators on it, can you provide a less biased source? Say the Economist which is a left leaning magazine."
[a] Well, MagiccyKirinny, I occasionally use Wikipedia as a source. When I do, I often provide the link, and if I don't it's easily found.
[b] This is in marked contrast to yourself. You practically never give a source for any of your assertions. When asked to recently, you declined. So the idea of your lecturing other people on how they should source their postings is highly amusing.
[c] One of the reasons I use Wiki is that, if I do a Google search, the Wikipedia page often comes up. [Wikipedia is also well known and AFAIK generally well regarded.]
[d] Another advantage is that Wiki pages are generally referenced and sourced - readers can see where they have got their data. [AFAIK people can also complain if they believe their facts are incorrect.]
[e] Naturally I do not automatically assume that everything on Wiki [or anywhere] is correct. However, at least I source the information I provide, so that people can check it, and dispute it if they wish.
[f] I think that it is instructive that I do not recall anyone here successfully disputing data from Wiki that I have provided. The data in question related to the takings for Michael Moore's films. If you have factual data which disproves Wiki, I'd be delighted to hear it. First time for everything.
[g] "Considering the fraud and the pc moderators on it, can you provide a less biased source? Say the Economist which is a left leaning magazine." The irony just keeps on coming. While lecturing us on objectivity, as usual you parade your own prejudice as fact, with absolutely no factual support provided. What fraud exactly? What evidence is there that the moderators are 'politically correct' or 'biased'? You've already made it clear that Wiki are on that long, loooong, Enemies Of Magic List. As I recall this was because they didn't accept your 'objective' views on middle east issues. You'll need rather more proof than that.
[h] As it happens, I enjoy the Economist and read it often. I would consider them broadly liberal, but with an unashamed free-market preference. If you have any evidence that they are 'left leaning', please provide it.
Complain about this comment
#353 - tempcr - "In decades of living in the US, I have never dared tell anybody that I have never belonged to any religion, a triviality in the UK. How free am I just because nobody would arrest me? I dont feel free."
If I may ask, where did you live? There's a large number of Atheists spaced across the States and while religion is absolutely an unignorable fact in huge areas, there's also a large number places that have something of either a vacuum or a null influence. I'm from California - one of the most conservative counties in the state - and I've never felt as though it was an issue in general public for me to proclaim what faith I belong to (or that I lack one entirely). Sure, when meeting friend's parents that were particularly religious it's somewhat unavoidable, but rarely did I feel as though anybody would have an issue with my lack of religion. It may just be the people in the area. I can't say.
Can you please elaborate for me on why you felt persecuted, or at the very least, persecuted enough that you never expressed your views on religion (Or rather your lack thereof)? A lot of people, between three and nine percent of the population (roughly 8,790,840 - 26,822,520 people to put a number to it), share your view and while they may not be as outspoken as our UK counterparts, a lot of us aren't silent either.
Perhaps this is my lack of time spent in the UK abroad, but purely off having lived in the States my whole life, I'm mildly surprised that's one of the comparisons of freedoms between our countries.
Complain about this comment
Ref 372 archlightt
"Is there anyone here besides yours truly that at one time enjoyed listening to international SW radio?"
Been listening to SW radio since I was 14 years old. Got one for Christmas. That is when I first learned that the US news media did not always tell the whole story and there was a lot more world news of interest than what ever made it into the US news media.
Complain about this comment
Here's a significant difference in freedoms between UK and USA:
When Dick Cheney 'accidentally' shot someone a few years back, the owners of the land refused to allow the police onto the large grounds to investigate. Some people reported Cheney had been seen drinking alcohol before the shooting. I seem to recall Cheney has a few Drink-Drive convictions.
Is that right? In UK, the Police would have gone straight to the scene of a shooting, irrespective of who owned the land. The freedom not to be shot by your fellow citizen ranks quite high. Was Cheney ever subject to a blood test for alcohol? If someone has a problem with alcohol and guns, shouldn't that be investigated, and measures taken to prevent or limit possible re-occurence by the judiciary.
Some people are responsible with guns. Some people are responsible with alcohol. But its not responsible to mix those two activities. And it threatens the freedoms of other people - and their lives.
Complain about this comment
108 Timmmaayyy
I have a thought to share.
"Get lost MATT we don't believe you"
147 Pub.. good example. so let me ask.
If someone had the power to silence the person shouting Fire so the rush did not happen. Should they use it?
would it help freedoms in the future?
--------------------------------------
Some unnamed fool said..
"But then the European left are among the most insular ignorant groups in western civilization."
Yea,Real insular after their gap year travel around the world and all that socialising with people darker hued than themselves.
PS rich sm Gherky isn't part of the amorphous footwipe
Complain about this comment
169 Bere
"How do they know it's a gnome and not a cone-head?"
STUPID ! Cone heads don't exist!
;)
Complain about this comment
348, saintD.
"Calling for assassinations is a criminal act and should not be condoned. Not surprisingly, Mr. Robertson got away with complicity to commit murder with absolute impunity, perhaps, because our interpretation of "rights" and the rationale for what constitutes terrorism depends on who the perpetrators and targets are."
People are always saying rash things. "I am so mad I could kill him," for instance. Words are not acts. We cannot have dual standards - punish the powerful, but not the annoyed wife.
Complain about this comment
Richard, while I agree with you that the record shows that McCain was indeed arrogant and reckless and trashed a couple of his planes, I'm going to have to call you on writing bias in the way you described the incident on the Forrestal. The way you wrote it could quite easily be read as saying the accident and the 134 subsequent deaths could in some way be attributed to McCain. As it was, it was an F-4 Phantom sitting on the deck opposit McCain's plane from which the rocket was misfired, which then hit the fuel tank of either McCain's A-4 Skyhawk, or that of the man parked next to him. From where it all went to hell.
I just thought that should be clarified.
Complain about this comment
#352. MarcusAureliusII: "The British Parliament is a joke compared to the Congress of the United States, the greatest deliberative body in the world. Parliament is by contrast a rubber stamp whose deliberations usually amount to nothing."
the greatest deliberative body in the world. Really? If so, why isn't it televised for public scrutiny? As for the last statement, as usual you revert to the Joseph Pujol mode.
"But with your superior ability, of course it isn't. I wonder who history will remember - they or you?"
"The answer could hardly be more obvious. America . . "
That wasn't the question - it was who would be remembered, Disraeli, Churchill and Thatcher - or yourself? Now, if you would, answer that. I suggest you cannot because it is more than obvious.
"America will be remembered as the greatest invention in human history."
So you acknowledge that in the future the United States will be consigned to history, just as other empires in the past. Perhaps the civilisations which variously devised democracy, gave us a bill of rights or abolished slavery will be better remembered. In a thousand years, will America be thought of any better than the Greek, Roman or British Empires? I think not.
"Had 20th century Presidents not ignored President Washington's warnings, Britain would have succumbed to Germany twice, the USSR once."
America's actions were hardly altruistic. Had Britain, all of Europe and the USSR succumbed, then the Third Reich would have been the most powerful entity on earth. Next stop, USA. Long range rockets were not perfected in America but by the Germans, otherwise Wernher Von Braun and his colleagues would not have been whisked away to build for America. Think what might have happened had they continued in a peaceful, Nazi, Germany. That and the progress with atomic weaponry could well have changed the world map.
"I find these people and their nation, their continent repugnant."
Many people feel the same way about the writer, but you do have the freedom of expression on a British blog. Fortunately you are in the minority, part of the lunatic fringe which both irritates and amuses, just as visitors to Bedlam and other institutions were entertained in days gone by.
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner
Thanks for the usual balanced remarks in many above but I feel you are overdoing it with your feelings that linking any individual service observations made about John Mccain are diminishing the records of all those who served.
Every job, Military career, any profession will have its' share of bad or rotten apples and all comment should be possible to be used against any specific character that is being heralded as perfection by another blogger.
Was he a Flying ace or a disaster?
Wiki informs me -- "For all of ..............'s mental acumen, however, he is physically a very poor flyer, which has been a character trait since he first appeared. He flitters around in erratic fashion, often upside down, and frequently crashes into things. He usually manages to get where he wants to go, though, as long as he doesn't have to fly too high. He is prone to beak-bleeds if he goes over ten feet in the air"
Please do not feel that this comment supporting the views of others makes me against all flyboys too. He, like Mccain has difficulty in the landing part, whereas his best friend has problems getting off the ground. It can happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTssF_NYusQ
Complain about this comment
353, temper.
:In decades of living in the US, I have never dared tell anybody that I have never belonged to any religion, a triviality in the UK. How free am I just because nobody would arrest me? I dont feel free."
All my adult life I have said I was an atheist when the subject came up. I have never found it to be a problem. Perhaps it depends on where you live and your millieu.
Complain about this comment
Richard_SM and #378.
I suppose it depends a bit on the interpretation of 'being there'.
Mc Cain had flown 23 missions over North Vietnam in those 30 days.
After being shot down he spent 65 months as a POW in North Vietnam which included being tortured, starved and generally mistreated.
I don't think 'only being there a month' quite does justice to the scenario.
Complain about this comment
363, interested.
Eirther you have free speech or you don't. Once the government steps in to limit the speech of a group it opposes, the door is opened for the persecution of you and me.
Complain about this comment
happy, I have to jump in and correct you here - coneheads DO exist.
Usually, they conceal their true identity. If you happen to walk down
Rodeo Drive in LA, you'll see plenty. They're the people with the weird
hairdos.
However, it is obvious to the casual observer that gnomes are not
coneheads, because they have a point at the top of their hats, whereas
coneheads have a rounded top to their heads.
In my experience, gnomes are frequently found in academia. Frequently, when I
engage one in conversation and hear one come to a conclusion (which is rare),
I say, "You have a point, but it may be at the top of your head."
Such observations are, well, "pointless" to make with coneheads.
Coneheads, by comparison, are rarely found in ivory towers. They are simply
too "well rounded."
Complain about this comment
Once a year, on the steps of our state capital, the KKK and skinheads hold a rally. At first, some local counter-demonstrater's gave these haters a greater voice be rioting. However, most of the Denver population now point and laugh at the clansman... We may not like what they have to say, but it is thier right. As long as they are not shouting "KILL THAT ******!!!". Most, here, even riddicule the creationists. But, for a second think, what if they are right and we suppressed thier message?
Complain about this comment
arclightt (#379) "Is there anyone here besides yours truly that at one time enjoyed listening to international SW radio?"
I did, but that was almost 50 years ago. Now that I'm nearing retirement, maybe I'll take it up again. I doubt my condo association would allow a suitable antenna on the roof, however. I don't expect an indoor one would work well enough given the type of construction.
Complain about this comment
Ref #388 MarcusAurelius
Yes I know they did. Belive it or not I remember it. My father was called at home and promptly 'disappeared' for a few days for reasons we weren't allowed to ask at the time. It was either this incident, or one other, that he hugged us kids the hardest I ever recall, just before he left. He was a nuclear weapons design engineer and on the emergency response team to disarm a weapon should one get 'mishandled' (lost, dropped, fell off etc) somewhere. Worked in Britain, New Mexico, Nevada and Pacific Islands.
Complain about this comment
379, arclightt -
I used to enjoy international SW radio, but now I can't pick up any stations in English. I know BBC and CBC ceased directing broadcasts to the U.S. because of the internet. Perhaps other countries stopped for the same reason. All I can pick up now is Radio Havana, which is amusing but palls after awhile. Oh, and there are a lot of Christian stations on SW now. My SW radio is gathering dust.
VOA struck me as being the U.S. equivalent of Radio Havana. Perhaps that's why they don't want Americans listening to it -- they're embarrassed to have Americans hear the kind of propaganda that's being put out.
Complain about this comment
378 Richard.
Re: John Mc Cain: I do not know the dates of his service or flights, but 23 combat missions in a single month would be a lot. That just does not sound right to me.
As for the Forrestal Fire, your posting makes it sound as if McCain caused the fire and the resulting loss of life. Clearly that was not the case.
On the contrary, either his aircraft or the aircraft next to it was the one that was hit by a rocket accidentally fired from an aircraft on the other side of the deck, further forward. Apparently the rocket fired due to some kind of electrical fault. Don't see how he can be blamed for that one. He was lucky to get out of his aircraft alive, and showed considerable presence of mind in the manner in which he did so.
Complain about this comment
It would be interesting to note how many of THESE posts are rejected! lol! On CNN Ireports, comments are posted without moderation!
Complain about this comment
370. MAII
GM is in trouble because it had its head in the sand for way too long.
GM's problem isn't a recent thing, and it transcends fluctuations in the price of fuel. The problem goes back 40 years and more.
While GM was breathing its own exhaust (i.e., believing its own advertising) other manufacturers learned to make products with a future, that didn't break down anywhere near as often: GM also ignored Consumer Reports, too. There are lots of reasons why, for example, Toyota is better placed to weather this storm.
Nader's criticisms were about car making in general, and were not limited to N. American producers. They applied to cars of any make, and of any origin. However, at the time GM, Ford and Chrysler had well over 90 % of the N. American market.
Complain about this comment
394, happy: "STUPID ! Cone heads don't exist!"
Oh! They don't? Could have sworn I saw one under the bridge the other day. Must have been a troll, because I'm pretty sure gnomes don't hang about under bridges.
Complain about this comment
401. Marbles.:
Oh, I agree.
But nobody was preventing these people from speaking.
On the contrary.
The problem with this group is that it is not satisfied with merely being allowed to speak, merely being given extensive coverage in the print media, on radio, and on all the major networks, for a dispute that has absolutely nothing to do with Canada. They were not satisfied with repeated marches down major streets. They were not satisfied with besieging the US consulate (and what they thought that was going to achieve is also beyond understanding) and thereby blocking an 8-lane arterial road for a week while the Police watched quietly, and tried to keep the peace.
What these people objected to was that nobody was listening to them. And they just can't stand that.
While these folks demand that their rights be respected, they have no apparent understanding that they need to respect the rights of others.
Freedom of speech is not merely the right of the speaker to speak, but also the right of the listener (or reader) to choose whether to listen (or read). This group is trying to deny their neighbours the right to ignore them - which is also what freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience, are about.
Consider this blog. Many readers scroll past long postings, or simply ignore postings by particular contributors. That is their right. It is not freedom of speech to try to compel others to read what you write, or listen to what you say if they do not wish to.
Here, the public has sized this group up, and chosen to ignore their protests - because they lack substantive merit, and have absolutely nothing to do with Canada.
What this group did was then to have women and children, including children in strollers, walk onto, and block, a motorway. In the US context, imagine I-80 through Chicago, or I-95 on the east coast being blocked by pedestrians.
It was foolish, it was dangerous, it was contemptuous of the rights of others. The police have handled these situations with remarkable patience and tolerance - to the fury of the population, generally. The police have been very level headed, and, as a result, nobody has yet been injured. But it is way, way out of hand. Note that the group has not offered to pay compensation to the people whose time was wasted, or to the businesses that were effectively prevented from operating for a week, or to the City for the cost of policing.
It's that negative externalities thing: No respect for the rights of others.
Complain about this comment
bere54 (#406) "I know BBC ... ceased directing broadcasts to the U.S. ... "
I just confirmed this. What an appalling development! So much for the idea of getting a new SW radio.
Complain about this comment
370 MAII, 379 ARC
I'm not saying that public broadcasting should replace commercial broadcasting, or that it is better or more accurate, or that it is not also subject to pressures and prejudices.
No, on that point, my view would be "the more the merrier".
The point is that public broadcasting has a whole different set of biases, prejudices, and blind spots, and usually has a national mandate to cover stories and activities that commercial broadcasters would otherwise ignore. Public broadcasters lose a lot of money doing this, yet it serves a rather important purpose in a democracy. Therefore, have a strong public broadcaster as well as a vibrant commercial broadcast industry. This is particularly important in a smallish country where there may be a high degree of concentration of ownership in the news media.
Complain about this comment
FIRE! FIRE! FIRE! Just a test... as you were.
Complain about this comment
" the nation that protects minorities from abuse or the nation that lets a thousand voices scream?"
Ok, sorry about the silliness. But, isn't the question more about offense than ABUSE? I put forward that America pretects your right to offend and be offended more than protecting peoples emotions. Let the arrows fly.. Sticks and stones....
Complain about this comment
GnR in the UK a cone head is someone that Smokes lots of cones.
just to let this side of the pond know there is another side.
but they don't exist hose smokers cause of the lack of freedom.
Complain about this comment
411, 413, InterestedForeigner -
I listen to National Public Radio every day for hours and I am not at all familiar with the demonstrations you refer to in Canada. NPR's coverage of things over the northern border is severely lacking. I'll look it up on the CBC website. NPR can't really be considered a "strong public broadcaster" because it is funded mostly by private donations with very little public (tax) money involved. And one always wonders how much its reporting is influenced by the major corporations that "underwrite" it. NPR says none; I find that hard to believe.
Complain about this comment
gunsandreligion #332: '"somehow I doubt that Savage is as amusing as Brand was, but I see the point."
O but you see? That there is exactly my point! The people who found discomfort with Brand's comments, while perhaps slightly amused by them, were largely offended by them. They felt a self proclaimed "representative of the United Kingdom" had no right to attack the then real representative of the American people to the people of the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. They felt that he had way overstepped his bounds when making fun of a man, who at the time, had about a 50% chance of being closely related to the potencial next first family of the United States. Now as I said above, I believe without hesitation that some of those American's reactions were nothing more than remmanissant of a 2-year old's tantrum, and should've been rightfully so dismissed as such. But I stand by my original stance that Americans certainly had a right to be mildly offended, and that, along with my earlier expressed thoughts on our nations needing to face up to the unpleasant reality of our multy cultural societies, is what my post was speacking to. India Knight, and others like her, can no longer sit on their high horses and judge the United States of America for being a flaming hypocrite. They can no longer call us thin skinned for being offended at a British comedian when the British government itself has decided to ban an American DJ from even entering the UK to even make an attempt at talking to and with the British people so that they can decide for themselves whether they find his material offencive or not. They must examine Great Britain under the same harsh magnifying glass and microscope as well now. Americans were offended at Russell Brand's comments, and yet noone stormed the stage during the middle of his act and dragged him off in handcufs. After the initial histaria surrounding the affair had subsided, Brand was allowed to come and go as he pleased, and to the best of my knoledge, no Homeland Security secritary has tryed, or is trying, to ban him from entering the United States despite the offence he caused. In fact, as the India Knight article explains, Brand has been invited by MTV to come back and host the VMAs again this year! So therefore more Americans must have liked him than hated him, and in any event, as Mikal Savage is doing now in the UK through his having been banned, Russell Brand has atracted far more Americans to his form of entertainment then he could've possibly ever dreamed of. Americans who, up until last year's VMAs, have probably never heard of him. So to sum up, I share the view of 'allmymarbles. There isn't degrees of freedom of speach in this country as there is in the UK, and nor should there be.
"It is true, though, that we must be a difficult people to understand, because we have Hollywood parading all sorts of false imagery around the world."
Hollywood does to a large extent dispense what it feels it can make money off of, and what it feels the people will want to buy just like any other business. But remember too, that art imitates life and vice versa. So while it is certainly never wise to judge a country based solly on its entertainment, that is not to say that judging a country at least partly on its entertainment is necessarily a falacy.
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner -
Okay, I've read up on the Tamil demonstration and can understand your disgust (if that's not too strong a word) and frustration. This is not an acceptable form of protest unless it takes place in the country in question (e.g. it might have been appropriate in Sri Lanka).
As for the Tamil Tiger (a terrorist organization) flags, that's an interesting conundrum. A few years ago I happened to be sitting in the window of a coffee shop in Montpelier when a pro-Palestinian march came along. Among the marchers was a man holding a large sign that said "Kill the Jews." [Moderators: I am quoting a sign, not advocating anything violent.] It appeared that he had just joined the line. Several other marchers approached him, and while I could not hear what they were saying, it was obvious they were attempting to dissuade him from displaying that sign. He just smiled and shook his head and continued on as part of the procession. The others finally gave up and left him alone.
Had I been a part of the march, I would have left it so as not to be associated with that man's sentiments. No one could force him to leave or not display his sign. But it could very easily give the impression that the rest of the marchers were of the same mind as he because they continued to march with him. That one person gave an ugly look to what was otherwise a fairly innocuous demonstration. He was destroying their message.
Who has the rights here? I sure don't know.
Complain about this comment
guns #332: Also, I think it is pretty clear from my post at #325, that what I ment by my reference to our constitution was not to illistrate how the British people/government felt at the time of our revolution, but that often times, because of the diversity of our country, the constitution is the only thing any two Americans have in common. Just as in the UK, the queen, or Paul McCartney, or Russell Brand, will be the only thing any two Britains have in common. Please don't assume otherwise and open that can of worms, you'll get another debate going like the endless one on World War II.
Complain about this comment
Although I am a foreigner, let me say this about the British ruling banning those with undesired opinions: it lacks pertinence. If someone's opinions are illegal, then that person should be prevented from expressing opinions. Restricting other freedoms, such as the right to enter a nation, has no relevance to the supposed offense, because it has no impact whatsoever on that person's ability to express the opinion at issue. It reeks of a "because we can" approach to law enforcement i.e. we take this recourse because we CAN take it, not because it is pertinent. If that approach characterizes British law in general, then I think that represents a serious lapse in basic freedoms. Of course, the lack of pertinence is only a symptom of a more fundamental flaw, which is the idea that people's opinions can be placed into legal categories that designate them to differential treatment by the state.
Complain about this comment
SamTyler1969 #349. . .
I know that British culture dictates that there is inevitably going to be more mocking of individuals, but if you think that in the privacy of the work place and people's homes etc, that Americans don't do their fair share of mocking (all be it less severe than the British) than you are fooling yourself!
As regards the following: "The Brits are also far more free to criticize authority."
Don't you see how this statement utterly contradicts the statements you made, rightfully, about American freedoms? If we were not tolerant of bigoted people, much less free to speack as we pleased, then we would not be just as "free" to criticize authority as well. We do it just as much and as harshly as the UK does. Trust me! Its just through different outlets. But I will admit this to you: we have dredful journalists when it comes to really holding a president's feet to the fire. We could sorely use a Jaramy Paxman!!
"Here, we almost automatically give folks respect because of their title. In the UK the press and individual citizens are far more cynical and question more. Hence you can compare an unpopular PM (Brown) who is called to account and quizzed once a week by the peoples representatives with an unpopular President who allowed folks to ask questions once a year or so, on his terms.
I think it is safe to say that with the passage of time, the press and individual citizens of any democracy become more and more cynical and sceptical of their elected officials. That's not just in the UK. Question Time, while I think a wonderful public check on government's authority, was not devised because a bunch of ordinary people got together one day a long time ago, and peticioned the government to allow their elected representatives to intaragate the prime minister, I'm quite sure. I'm pretty sure it came about through some other means, most likely through the prime minister, or perhaps the monarch if it has been around for a couple hundred years or so. Besides, I don't think its necessarily true that the prime minister is "held to account" during prime minister's questions. Sure he/she is harshly intaragated and often times gets utterly ripped to shreds, but what if a member of the opposition wants him/her to do something that they refuse to do or even compromise on? Nothing happens. Because of the way the parlamentary system is set up, the opposition can't force a prime minister's hand, nor can they force them to settle on a compromise on what they want. The best they can do is expose the prime minister for what they are on national tellevision, and hope that the public will revolt against them. Again, I'm speacking as a huge admirer of Question Time, and as one who strongly desires that it be implemented in the US! I'm just merely pointing out that the fact that a prime minister is questioned once a week doesn't mean that they are necessarily made to answer for their actions.
Also please remember, that while its true that presidents can choose how often to hold press conferences, its is manditory for their press secritary to answer questions from the White House press corps once a day throughout their entire administration.
Complain about this comment
termite
"while we may allow Marcus his right to speak,"
Tell me which direction to face when I genuflect to you in homage and gratefulness for your generosity and beneficence.
Canard;
The proceedings of the House of Representatives can be seen on C-SPAN and of the Senate on C-SPAN 2 as can selected committee and subcommittee hearings. They can also be viewed on line. There is limited space for public visitors to view them live. And their complete transcripts are available in the Congressional Record. And Parliament's proceedings? Probably not. It would be too humiliating.
Complain about this comment
There's a channel we have over here Marcus. It's called BBC Parliament. Can you guess what it shows? Also, I'm pretty sure the Hansard logs of everything that happens in Parliament, except where it pertains to matters of national security, are also available.
Complain about this comment
Heh, heh. That Mucus #2.
Hope you folks here on these posts don't think he is the norm in the USA.
Complain about this comment
#360InterestedForeigner,
Please shoot me down;if need be.
E Hartmans massive total of Kills was due to,1=not being rested after so many tours. 2=except for 5 or6 ,all his kills were against obsolete or out classed Russian air craft & poorly trained pilots, on the eastern front.(Russian air craft only came near west standerds at end of war yaks etc)It was like being in a road race, using a Porch 911 up against souped up Ladas ,Me109 & FW190, Vs all Russian opposition=turkey shoot.
The RAF was totaly manned by common wealth pilots.
Bomber command was no exception.Night after night they went out with a 1 in 3 chance of getting shot down,and so many other ways of hitting the ground hard,Some nights, some 90 Lancasters were lost and still they Kept going out.171 missions,with 6to9 hours flying comes near to the 1405 sorties a ME 109s flying endurance of just over an hour.
Brave men on all sides,Its just for me I am not keen on any body shooting at our boys, especially the Welsh.If E Hartmans combat was against the RAF or USAF he would not have reached 352 kills.
Complain about this comment
# l Post.
Comparing Keith Obermann and Ed Shutz with Michael Savage is like comparing learned doctors of medicine and bordering on insane patients in a mental institution.
Don't go there, MagicKirin, you might end up with the other FOX news loonies!
Both Keith Obermann and Ed Shutz speaks to it's audiences in real terms, not like hatred that spews out of Michael Savage. At least in Great Britian they can determine dangerous loonies from the truth.
Complain about this comment
418. NoRash
"So to sum up, I share the view of 'allmymarbles. There isn't degrees of freedom of speach in this country as there is in the UK, and nor should there be."
Actually, there are degrees of freedom of speech in America, as there are in Canada, and as there are in the UK.
The most highly protected speech is speech that pertains to political issues. This is "core" freedom of speech.
There is also literary freedom of speech, which covers not only controversial subject matter, but also issues of public morality. What is, after all, pornographic? This is a matter of community standards.
There is personal free speech, which is limited by the laws of defamation, for example.
Then there is commercial free speech. What is permissible in advertising?
A case working its way through the courts now asks whether there is a right to compel broadcasters to show public advocacy ads that attack the products of major advertisers: An environmentalist group seeks to buy airtime to air commercials to discourage people from buying cars. The automobile companies, huge purchasers of advertising, have made their displeasure known, and the TV stations have effectively black-listed the environmentalists' ads.
The car ads are commercial free speech, clearly. But the environmentalists ads are political free speech. Can broadcasters refuse? Does that mean they would then have to accept ads from every well-funded public interest group that wants to use the airwaves? You can imagine where that would lead. The state provides the broadcasting licences. Do the airwaves not ultimately belong to the public? This problem is a thorny one, and raises very important free speech issues.
What is permissible in attack, i.e. comparative, advertising? What is permissible in advertising to minors? What is permissible in advertising addictive products with significant social costs? (Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission take note!).
By and large, commercial free speech is much less strongly protected than political free speech.
Marble's comment is really directed to political free speech, but even there limits exist.
So, to say that you either have free speech or you don't is sort of true, but perhaps not entirely true, and, in many contexts subject to a reasonableness standard in a democracy.
Complain about this comment
419. Bere.
Yeah, there are issues here.
People have a right to protest in a democracy, even about irrelevant things. We let protesters protest about Tibet, about the West Bank, or just about anything.
Sometimes it is hard to tell where to draw the line, but here, these folks have gone way, way beyond what is reasonable. People could have been killed or badly injured on the highway (e.g., as you stop frantically, and someone plows into you from behind).
As for the guy with the sign, that's another issue, too. You pretty much have to walk away from him, or ask the police to exclude him from your march, not on free speech grounds, but on grounds of public mischief. If he wants to hold his own parade, he is free to do so, subject to the usual rules concerning hate speech and incitement to violence.
Complain about this comment
382 MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Back in ye good olde days not so very long ago, Brits had the freedom of speech to blatantly post signs saying "No Coloureds" whenever and wherever they chose to which was frequent and widespread."
Marcus, this is selective even by your tired standards.
Do you not remember that the USA effectively had apartheid in many of its Southern states until the late 1960s ... ?
Complain about this comment
#423. MarcusAureliusII: "The proceedings of the House of Representatives can be seen on C-SPAN and of the Senate on C-SPAN 2 as can selected committee and subcommittee hearings. They can also be viewed on line."
Viewing on a subscription cable channel is not quite the same thing as one which is available to all, is it?
"And their complete transcripts are available in the Congressional Record. And Parliament's proceedings? Probably not."
I suppose Ignorance is bliss; every word of what is said in the House of Commons can be found in Hansard since at least 1803, the five most recent editions of which can be found here. The Congressional Record commenced in 1873. So much for your assertion.
Complain about this comment
Ref 428 Interestedforeigner
"An environmentalist group seeks to buy airtime to air commercials to discourage people from buying cars."
Surely that's a no brainer. Why shouldn't they be able to air their 'commercials'?
Why is even going through the courts? What are the arguments for preventing these ads?
Complain about this comment
357 arclightt
"If I hear someone calling for me to kill this person or that, ..... If I choose to act, who's responsible? The guy who called on me to kill someone? Or me? Well, I AM, because I chose to do the deed!"
Yes of course you are responsible, but so is the person who incited you to the act. Many people are very susceptible to suggestion from supposedly knowledgable or respected figures (be they clerics, politicians, talkshow hosts) however crazy they may seem to you or me. Just because YOU consider yourself to be responsible for your actions does not mean everyone else will be.
By your logic the individual suicide bombers are responsible, but not the mullahs who incite them to do it with promises of martyrdom and paradise.
Complain about this comment
Well the cat's out of the bag. Time to play musical chairs. Justin Webb out, Mark Mardell in. From two of our fans Mr. Webb;
29. At 7:54pm on 11 May 2009, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
Welcome to the North American beat, Mr. Mardell. I have just two tips for you:
1. Mr. Webb is not that hard an act to follow.
2. MarcusAureliusII is not the best source of advice among the BBC's North American readers, as you will find for yourself.
And from another fan;
41. At 10:21pm on 11 May 2009, threnodio wrote:
#29 - Gary_A_Hill
Amen to both of those.
Me? I don't mind;
42. At 10:47pm on 11 May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
threnodious, it is a fact that I do not know a single good restaurant in Washington DC never having been there.
I just hope you can take the crushing disappoitement as well as I did Mr. Webb :-)
Complain about this comment
BBC gives a great deal of freedom of speech ...to anti-semites. There isn't a day that goes by when you can't read a ration of it on one BBC blog or another, usually expressed as extreme hatred for the State of Israel. But the real message is clear. If someone counters their slanders they often get their posts deleted. Suddenly the moderators become very strict at enforcing the house rules. One more example of BBC's infamous bias.
Complain about this comment
"Why is even going through the courts? What are the arguments for preventing these ads?"
I'm going to go for it not being in the public (liability company)'s interests. That joe may not work so well over that side of the pond. I think I remember PLCs being a British thing, but whatever.
I'm not going to get into a discussion on the Israel/Palestine thing, because I think quite frankly both sides have the blood of thousands on their hands and both need to back off before there can ever be a hope of peace in that region, but this needs to be said. Being anti-Israel does not automatically make you anti-semitic. Yes, there are some who are, but many don't care about the religions involved, only that war crimes are being carried out. Part of the problem seems to be that people who are pro-Israel are told time and again that anyone who opposes Israel's actions is anti-semitic, and that simply is not true. I suspect you see anything that isn't pro-Israel as anti-semitic in exactly the same way you've been trained to see anything that's not loudly pro-America as anti-American. You, and a vocal minority of like minded peers, are the dogs in the yard, barking at everyone outside your home because you've been trained to see everyone from outside your family as a threat.
Complain about this comment
#384 Happy,
And hitler made it to power that way.
sorry but
Actually, Hitler made it to power by brawling with opponents, leading violent protests and intimidating anyone else. He was not just some blow-hard on the radio.
Complain about this comment
426. uk
Yeah, that's always the comment made.
At the risk of starting another interminable WWII discussion, I make a few points with respect to Hartmann:
But the numbers are so huge - and not only for Hartmann. Germany had no fewer than 30 pilots each of whom had shot down more than 100 aircraft, 9 of whom had shot down more than 200.
Consider that H-J Marseille shot down 158 aircraft, all of them British, apparently, before he was killed. Or Heinz Bar, 220 total, 120 against western air forces. Or Heinz Schnauffer, 121, all at night, all in the west. Schnauffer was a brilliant pilot.
No western pilot did anything like this. The top two Russian pilots shot down 62 and 59 aircraft respectively. The top US pilot, Major Richard Bong shot down 40 - and in the Pacific, at that. If Russian aircraft were so bad as compared to German ones, how could this have been?
First, the Germans fought on both fronts, regarded them as comparable, and among themselves regarded Hartmann as the unquestioned leading pilot.
Second, in his very limited action against western fighter aircraft over oil installations at Ploesti, Romania and against bomber escorts in the west, Hartmann nonetheless shot down a bunch of P-51's - flying a by-then significantly outclassed ME-109.
Third, for whatever reason, although asked to fly ME-262's by Adolf Galland, Hartmann went back to the ME-109, a clearly inferior aircraft, and stuck with it until the end.
Fourth, Hartmann was not inclined to dogfight. It was his ability to see the other fellow first, and to attack before the other fellow even knew he was there that was his great skill. That explains a good deal of why he could continue to be successful in an aircraft that was growing more obsolete by the day. He wasn't relying on the superiority of the aircraft, he was relying on the superiority of his vision and experience. For this, the ME-109 in the hands of a superb pilot was more than good enough.
Finally, unlike the western allies, there was no hope of ever being sent home after a tour of duty. Germany simply didn't have enough pilots. So the leading German pilots accumulated astonishing numbers of combat hours on type. No wonder they were good.
Hartmann, for example, flew over 1400 sorties (over 800 in combat) between his first operational flight in late August 1942 and May 8, 1945, a period of slightly over 1000 days. Pilots in western air forces were simply not required to do anything like that. In brief periods, as in the Battle of Britain, yes. But for over two and a half years with hardly a break? It's mind-boggling.
The only thing I can think of that is in any way comparable is the guys who flew DC-3's in the CBI, and then in Indo-China for the French, and then for the CIA. One fellow had 10,000 hrs on type. But, of course, all of it was flying transport aircraft, none of it was in combat.
Whatever may be said, Erich Hartmann must have been a phenomenally good pilot.
Finally, on bombers:
A loss rate of 30% on any major mission would have ended Bomber Command's strategic bombing campaign.
A 7 % loss rate was unsustainable: Berlin, August 23, August 31 and September 3, 1943; Kassel, October 22, 1943; Magdeburg, January 21, 1944; Leipzig, February 19, 1944.
Typical losses were 3 - 4 %. This may sound small, but compound that by 25 or 30 missions. At 3% half the force is lost in 23 missions. At 4 %, half the force is lost in 17 missions.
Knowing that probability, try to imagine getting your head in the right space not so much the first time, but the second, and the third ... and the eight, and the ninth. Knowing that sooner or later it would be your turn. And 6 Group, Bomber Command, flew Lancasters and Halifaxes equipped with Bristol Hercules radial engines, rather than Merlins: slower than average, lower service ceiling.
I think about that every Remembrance Day.
Complain about this comment
432. Richard
Oh, it looks deceptively simple at first, but it isn't.
What if the major advertising accounts then pull their business? If you are a commercial broadcaster, your company just went bankrupt. Ouch.
If we make this a requirement, does that then mean that you have to air advocacy commercials for and against, let's say, abortion, gay marriage, polygamy, the death penalty, flag burning, immigration, English as the official language of the US, the metric system, legalization of Marijuana, and who knows what else. Does it mean that you have to do this whether there is an election going on or not? Or will public advocacy ads be prohibited at election time as constituting an end run around election spending limits under the Canada Elections Act.
Will there be an automatic right of reply for anyone who is offended?
The issue is much the same as asking whether a newspaper can adopt a deliberate editorial policy of favouring one political party over another: Of course they can. No newspaper is obliged to print editorial material (or advertising) with which it disagrees. So why then, should a broadcaster be obliged to carry and ads it doesn't want to carry?
But is that acceptable if it that means that political free speech on global warming, natural foods, public medicine, sustainable use of resources, and so on, never receive public exposure on anything like equal footing with major advertisers. The ban on cigarette advertising, for example, is quite an object lesson.
No, for a private broadcaster.
Complain about this comment
Interesting subject and, as I noticed, many interesting comments.
Let me bring me own experience with cops.
Once I stopped my car, with the engine running, next to the sign that read" Do not even think of parking here" - real city approved sign (!). My friend jumped out to the store that was there to get cigarettes. He came back and we drove off. In a moment, while turning on a side street to pick another guy,I saw a cop behind "flashing his colors". We stopped and got into a small exchange protesting the ticket the "man-of-the-law was preparing. My friend was calmly telling the cop that we did not parked at the store but stopped. The cop got irritated and started writing another ticket - for the missing turn signal, then for not wearing the belts. Three tickets all on fictitious charges. The cop warned me - " Tell him to stop arguing or I will write some more tickets". The final, reached at the local traffic court - $150.00 payable to the county court. Justice of the West - luckily ended with no one hung. Is this a local or national "freedom" trend?
There are naive souls who because of being spared the frivolity of the local un-justice think all is fine in Eden. Is it? Statistics show that USA keeps three times as many of its citizens in jail as Red China. The true ratio is 15:1 when you consider populations of both countries.
I do not remember British statistics but Britain is lagging far behind.
While this should put to the rest question of where freedom is dominating, the trends in both USA and Britain may be a cause for alarm. Cameras at every city corner? Soon citizens will be afraid to look over their own shoulders, sensing terrorists everywhere. Jay walking, spitting on the street? No way unless you want to part with your money. Paranoia! But peddlers of fear and... cameras and other detection/inspection devices sold for profit are having a field days. With politicians continuing to keep fear/terrorist specter/Alqueda nonsense alive for their political aspirations the signs are not comforting. And to think that not long ago we were ridiculing Soviets for their internal documentation with photographs as tools of totalitarian society. Did any of you see lately a driving licence without a person's face embedded in plastic?
Another ominous sign are efforts to make cash transactions less attractive and more and more aligned with plastic cards and transacting over the Internet. Think about population control tools.
Which leads to the question, - Are we going in the right direction or slowly drowning into a quicksand of neo slavery?
Complain about this comment
#422
Rash,
The history of Parliament is an interesting one, and while it goes back to Magna Carta as a meeting of priviledged folk, it was early on divided into two houses, one representing the Kings faction of appointees (The Lords) and the other the peoples representatives (albeit not elected but more common folk and k-nig-its (Python had the prounounciation right)). The equality of the Commons was established by Henry V in the 15th century. In the 17th century the civil war established the primacy of the Commons.
What happens during PM Question time is the executive branch is held to book, weekly, by their worse critics. The other parties and every elected official in the country. It allows every shire to ask a question. It is an exercise in governance that is interesting and one that we should try to learn from. The questions may be driven by an MP's desire to please their party, or their constituents. They are controlled by rules and regulations, but they force the executive branch to command a wide range of facts regarding the issues of the day. Few Presidents could face such a trial each week.
On the other side the USA is a Nation of Laws, governed by a Constitution which derives power from 'We the People'. It defines what our Government can do in our name rather than what a power that can do anything has been restricted by. What Government cannot do to us.
We got to a similar place, by different roads. That we are here together is the most important fact.
Optimist Sam
Complain about this comment
David Cunard:
"Actually sweetheart, too, too absurd"
LOL
Sweetheart?? No thanks. You are now on my ignore list.
Sweetheart...the mind boggles.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Swmae (Welsh for hello) I've read this blog for quite a while now but just didn't feel confident enough to take part until now!!
Won't pull any punches, i'm Welsh, live in Australia and am a life long socialist (please don't call me a liberal, in Oz they're li'l Johnny Howards mob and in Wales they're 'enlightened' landowners and farmers hedging their bets)LOL.
I'm a member of a political party, all be it from afar, Plaid Cymru (party of Wales) i'm in no way educated as i started work at 15, a loyal union member from that day to this as was my dad,grandad and great grandad etc, i broke the mould, not to mention ranks with the Labour party of Wilson, Callaghan and Healey.
My family were mortified but quite happy in a way i think for my independence of thought, free speech in other words, yes? My son's 6 and 8 have that choice also.
I relish coming on here after getting the kids to school (-; freshly ground coffee, the papers and a fag ahhh bliss.
Whilst not agreeing with about half of the posts i must say i enjoy the 'cut and thrust' of it all.
I feel i have a connection to Happy as "Jah love soon come" springs readily to mind Lol, Sam for his humour and the fine, strong women here.
Two questions, Magic killin, What colour is the sky on your planet???
MA, are you institutionalised?? if not America's mental health resources need to be nationalised and updated quick smart lol (-; I speak as someone who suffers from a mental illness BTW.
Talk soon i hope,
Gar.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
422 No rash.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hXLxxl7CsE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azxNL-T3IFQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwm5Ykx57JI&NR=1
The Uk had a show "spitting Image" mercilous reaming of politicians that make SNL look like what it reaally is. Frat house rubbish with little wit or humour.And really bad impressions that are in no way imaginative.
(sorry tina fey was both great as Palin and crap. all visual.)
anywho the reason I mention it was because when they tried to bring it here to the states , unlike the awful bucket shows that duffs watch or the office, or ab fab,........list goes on.....the american people po poohed it for being to harsh on the politicians.
Flop.
They even tried a little britain show for the states. which due to the lack of poking at specific people in atoritory probably will go down well;)
http://www.hbo.com/littlebritainusa/
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
OPPs just finished watching the show on Wounded knee 2 .Something that I have had interest in for a long time.
There the people had a deal with the Gov.
They went to washington.
One was arrested.
as they said in the old movies(about only truth most of the time) "white man speak with forked tongue "
well there was a good example.
Free to speak, but in being also free to have no honour and no truth they got away with that arrest and 60 murders.
Lies kill.
"This cigarette will make you manly ,and healthy"
Acceptable free speech or bald faced lie?
Court settled it and found that certain lies are not acceptable.
Shame they never treated the locals so well.
---------------------------------
Complain about this comment
"437. At 02:20am on 12 May 2009, rodidog wrote:
#384 Happy,
And hitler made it to power that way.
sorry but
Actually, Hitler made it to power by brawling with opponents, leading violent protests and intimidating anyone else. He was not just some blow-hard on the radio. "
-------------------
I'll take your "sorry butt" and add
UMMM Hey Dog but hate to tell you this, a little tiny pip squeak of a runt does not almost take over the world with anything but words. seems you have some way to go on the understanding
To quote a rather famous one "the pen is no weak trembling liberal"
Complain about this comment
lol taff Cymru,
the right are always telling me about how the crazies were let out.
Complain about this comment
"brawling with opponents, leading violent protests and intimidating anyone else."
hey rodog
maybe Hitler did so show us the pictures of him sleeves up getting into it with some big chap in the demo.
Just ONE.
see in
433 Stu rome seems to get the point that some real nasty people never fought just encouraged others .
If you missed that then you missed america for 8 years.
You missed the point of propaganda .
Did no propaganda work?
well lets stop wasting money then.
-----------------------------
lol dave
"So, both are free countries, but the word has different meaning in each."
But seeing as the language is called ENGLISH i suspect they have dibs on what the word means,in English.
---------
Hey Timmaaayyy sweatheart, hows your other 2/3 s
Complain about this comment
So apparently in this discussion of freedoms I am not allowed to discuss the freedom to get a job without being tested for what you smoked up to one month earlier.
but they do, I see, allow a bunch of personal topic discussions that some of us have read every week for a year now.
Complain about this comment
the americans will not allow someone into the country who has a minor drug conviction.
not speech and not free to all.
those inside face drug tests before they can get a job. the more menial the job the more likelyhoood of having to take the test.
I doubt the people at AIG were drug tested.
(wouldn't matter anyway cause coke is a quick one through the body).
so Brits how many of you had to (censored)(short word 4 letters starts with P end in s) in a cup for someone in order to get a job stacking shelves?
Freedom?
Cameras vrs drug tests everywhere.
Drug test your kids.
Free kids?
excuse me mods there is no advocating crimes here just talk about them and the blog topic is freedom so unless you want me just to write in some rambling call for genocide or libelous accusations about victims of crimes pretending, do try to see that there is nothing in breach of the rules.
What suggesting that AIG staff are not drug tested is not against the rules.
This is a perfect example of where there is no breach of ant rule but the mods see it fit to make them up.
Same if you had no rules.
sometimes it is not the rules but the people that implement them.
that is why america has this great obsessive thing about freedom of speech and gun ownership.
problem is they don't see the other side.
8 years GW ignored the rules cause he was Free.
And we all suffered.
the rules did not allow him to.
Abusers will abuse anyway rules or no rules.
I'd hope to limit their mob as quick as possible.
Complain about this comment
In 1933 a fire broke out in the Reichstag Parliament. Hitler declared this was a terrorist attack by the communists and used the media to spread fear and panic. He then passed the Reichstag Decree which was an anti-terror law, that stated "it is permissable to restrict the rights of personal freedoms." A network of civilian informants established; Police were enabled to operate outside civil authority; big businees tax burden reduced; trade unions abolished; critics were labelled communists; anti-semitism was combined with ant-communism..
In 1938, the 'J' stamp on an ID card was used to identify Jewish shops and on the Krystallnacht their windows were smashed and the Holocaust began. As no one could speak out, no one could protest, and no one fully realised what was happening, Hitler was able to build the worlds most brutal totalitarian state. In 1939, Germany invaded Poland so Britain and France declared war. A generation was devastated.
In 1945, the Allies declared victory and said,"never again." To protect the world from war, they had to protect the citizen from the state. If Hitler had not taken the liberties away from the German people, they might have stopped Hitler taking Germany to war, through speech and protest and alerting outside states that all was not well.
In November 1950, the leaders of the war torn countries of Europe came together to try and prevent these horrors ever happening again. The European Convention on Human Rights, contained the fundamental protections of an individual from their own governments:
A Ban on Torture, No Detention Without Charge, Innocent Until Proven Guilty, Right to Privacy, Right to Protest, Freedom of Speech, No Retrospectivite Criminalisation, Religious Freedom, No Discrimination, Reduction/Abolition of Death Penalty.
Complain about this comment
Further to the torture discussions:
On Monday, the Washington Post reported the impending release of a May 7, 2004 IG report that, the paper added, would show that in several circumstances the techniques used to interrogate terrorist suspects "appeared to violate the U.N. Convention Against Torture" and did not produce desired results...."
Complain about this comment
Ref 455 Hesiodos
Does anybody really believe that the torture and brutality has been limited to a few cases of 'controlled' waterboarding on a handful detainees???
Waterboarding is just a fraction of what's been going on. People have been systematically beaten up, been tied in stress positions for days, and been maimed for life. Plus murdered. And they are virtually all innocent people. Guantanamo Bay is only part of the picture. Abu Ghraib was only part of the picture. The torture story will not be swept under the carpet. It will run and run. There's far too many involved.
Many atrocities occurred in Vietnam. People thought that when they got back home it would all be forgotten. They could close that chapter. As the years went by, the people who couldn't close that chapter were the ones that had done it - or the ones who'd witnessed it and said nothing. Wracked with guilt and regrets, their marriages were often the first casualty. Worse followed. Alcoholism. Drugs. Anger. Crime. Unemployment. Mental illness. For some, speaking out was their only way to get it out - the therapy they needed. Same will be happening soon. Those that don't crack live in fear of their buddies cracking. The testimonies that follow will be needed to prosecute those at the top who gave the orders, who don't have the nightmares, because they never had to see it, never had to hear the screams.
Complain about this comment
It is an interesting consideration, we Americans do often discuss freedom relative to our past oppose to other countries. With that said, it is worthy to note the significant shift(s) occurring in recent decades (however, one could strongly argue theres been a slow detrimental shift since 1787 and/or 1791). First, the move towards prevention oppose to strict prosecution of committed crime has enabled the government to consider intents, motives, and/or suspicion alone (child abuse for example) resulting in actual legal actions, in addition to the more diligent monitoring by police encroaching more and more on individual privacy and property. Hate crime laws represent another shift where swiftness and severity of punishment varies depending on who committed what on who, oppose to murder or rape being considered equally horrendous regardless of race, creed, or lifestyle. So yes, there was a time when theoretical discussions of freedom would include the scenario of screaming fire in a crowded theater, but one should rightly add whether a high school teacher can critique the president in the classroom, whether prevention supersedes prosecution, whether indefinite detainment and torture are permissible, whether taxation is now acceptable, whether the states are 50 administrative districts oppose to 50 republics, etc.
Complain about this comment
The prisons are not big enough to hold all the Republicans. What shall we do?
Beside, once we get that rift-raft off the streets, who is going to pay for everything? Hollywood?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Lots of excitement here in Pembrokeshie.Filming the latest Harry Potter has been taking place at, fresh water west, with the film set, shell house as back drop.Next month filming of the new, Robin Hood, with Russel Crow starts as well.Lots of Folk just going for walks on the beach to see all the action,including the old Evans couple,whos only other time out together is when their gass cooker exploded back in 1978.
Fresh water west is a beautiful beach,but many others here are more so,Barafundle,newgale & white sands are just some.Pembrokeshire has 180 mile of coast path in totaly unspoilt country side,teenage girls walk it in the summer on their own with no fear or hassel.
Who has the most freedom ? sorry folks its us.
Regards,
From, Bloody smug big head from wales.
Complain about this comment
Not only is referral of posting 459 to the moderators another example of British censorship proving there is no real freedom of speech in the UK, at least as BBC interprets it, it is also proof Brits have no sense of humor whatsoever. I'm not sure which is the more heinous crime. Even in the worst of Soviet times, the Russians had a sense of humor. Maybe that's the real reason Britain lost its empire. It couldn't laugh at itself. Today we just shake our heads? Dry sense of humor or dried to where it shriveled up and died? Nasty little place. Paraphrasing Prince Charles' comment about the White House, it really is a small country.
Complain about this comment
Thanks mods am glad I persevered on that last point, without changing a word.
to those that read the MA posts and wonder if he is telling the truth about the points moderated. He is not.
they were probably an attempt to as always raise one of a few topics where his clip and paste comments will fit.
It is a pretty innocent censorship that says "can you at least join the conversation not shout over it.with nothing to do with it"
Complain about this comment
440, passtorian -
Vermont was the last state to have non-photo driver licenses (but they offered a photo license too for an additional fee), and it was discontinued just in the last couple of years. The license was just a bit of paper. My son had one and was turned away from a bar in New York City because they couldn't believe it was a real ID. No one he showed it to believed it was real. Vermonters with only that as ID couldn't travel on airplanes under the Homeland Security rules. So we had to change with the times. Some people are very unhappy about it.
Complain about this comment
lol John in Dub
454 Rich "Reduction/Abolition of Death Penalty."
which america promptly said "to hell with that";) being the great treaty respecters they are.
Here's a topic where the Brits are clearly head s and tails more free than the americans.
legitimate criticism of Israel.
Complain about this comment
463 bere it seems strange that to go to the UK one does not need to have the ful alien probe that the states require to enter.
no iris scans needed. though euro passports and those around the world are being changed to please the Americans new found horror at terrorism.(never seemed to care before unless it stopped).
People were unhappy about that as well.
but I suppose to many here only americans count as people.
Complain about this comment
lazy
"It is a pretty innocent censorship that says "can you at least join the conversation not shout over it.with nothing to do with it""
Big words coming from someone on a continent that has been shouting its guts out at America for over a decade now. From where we sit, all we hear at most is a faint din and an occasional mewlish plaintif squeak.
What's the matter Europe, don't you like being shouted back at? Too loud for your sensitive delicate little ears?
Complain about this comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaQW7e8DfKY&feature=channel_page
"this is radio freedom"
Complain about this comment
bere - A friend of mine could not rent a car in Texas with his Vermont photo-less driver's license. Another, who does not have a license, tried to use his Quebec Medicare card in Florida to prove his age. The bouncer thought so little of it he threw it away! No car, no bar.
Complain about this comment
#442. TimothyR444: "Sweetheart?? No thanks. You are now on my ignore list."
Some good news for me.
"Sweetheart...the mind boggles."
With your 'too this' and 'too that', it's just too, too much; so last century. Unfortunately, you didn't recognise the subtlety of my remark.
A pity the Mods removed my reference at #443 to geographical areas where the word/s might have been used; frankly I cannot see anything wrong with mentioning them, but apparently they might have "caused offence". The mind boggles . . .
Complain about this comment
Ref # 460 ukwales
You're in Pembrokeshire? No wonder you're smug. I love it there. The best. I'm envious. But please stop putting on the internet. People will start visiting. Play it down it bit on your next post. Mention the sand on the beach is a bit gritty. The sea is clean - but cold. Or there's an al Qaeda training camp up on the ridge.
Complain about this comment
"Or there's an al Qaeda training camp up on the ridge."
Don't say that. You won't be able to move for Americans.
Complain about this comment
lol 470
not only that but when the tide goes out you need a kite buggy to get to the water.
Complain about this comment
lol kittle the walk to the water will put them off.
Complain about this comment
If they are free how come they are so Big. I thought that must be a result of restricted movement.
Complain about this comment
SamTyler1969 #441. . .
Thanks for the extremely interesting lesson on the history of parlament. I did not know all that much of how parlament itself had come into existance. Very interesting.
As regards the following paragraph:
"What happens during PM Question time is the executive branch is held to book, weekly, by their worse critics. The other parties and every elected official in the country. It allows every shire to ask a question. It is an exercise in governance that is interesting and one that we should try to learn from. The questions may be driven by an MP's desire to please their party, or their constituents. They are controlled by rules and regulations, but they force the executive branch to command a wide range of facts regarding the issues of the day. Few Presidents could face such a trial each week."
Did you not thoroughly read my paragraph on my knoledge and thoughts on Prime Minister's Questions? As a religious watcher of Question Time almost every week myself, I am quite aware, and quite impressed with and admirable of the way in which it is conducted. The measured routyness of it all, the witty insults (of policies, never people) thrown around like a medicine ball. I thought I had made that clear in my earlier post. I don't in the slightest dispute the fact that a prime minister is made to answer, publicly and to his/her worst critics, for their actions at high noon every Wednesday like clockwork. What I was merely pointing out, which still stands true, is that once an opposition MP, or leader of the opposition party, or member of any other party, absolutely rakes the prime minister over the coals for all the nation to see, no matter how painful it may be for the prime minister at the time, once the whole House of Commons utterly laughs in derision at them and their often times eneptitude, is the prime minister then after Question Time has ended very often forced to change their ways? No. That was all that I was trying to say. Again there's nothing wrong with it! Its just the way the parlamentary system is set up. And often times, because of this fact, a prime minister goes on their marry way until the next week's session when they get hammered again.
Again, as I stated above, I'm speacking as one who despratly wants the US to adopt the same practice! I know you think a president couldn't handle it, but what better way to condition them to do so than to introduce the same type of intaragation into this country? I can't think of any other way. Can you?
The closest thing to a perfect democracy we could get to, in my opinion, is a governmental set up like the US has, infused with a Question Time session like the UK, coupled with the easy impeachment process of the UK as well. But of course no nation has that.
Complain about this comment
Sorry for the late replies guys . . .
#130 Hesiodos
We're the good guys, remember?
Yes. Like the cowboy films where we defend ourselves from the aggressive Red Indians. The reality, of course, is the other way round!
#147, 150 Publius
The irresponsible acts of the people destroyed their own freedom.
I'm not saying it's not a difficult polemic, but I believe history has many examples of freedom being exploited to undermine the values it represents - we have to be vigilant.
Further to my comments, how can we be responsible for our actions and choices if we are not free to make them? Likewise, how can we be free if we cannot be responsible for that choice or action?
Complain about this comment
well maybe now
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8046676.stm
america will be able to help bring others freedom.;)
this is good news. Maybe america can help set a good example.
get rid of the death penalty.
the ultimate liberty taker.
" the well he's dead now .I am sorry it turns out he was innocent, but there's no rolling the clock back"
Complain about this comment
happy #446: So the United States doesn't know what it is to ridicule and make fun of a politicion. What else is new?
Richare_SM #454: But you see? If Germany had had a free press in 1933, or something resembling a free press, then wouldn't it have been much harder for Hitler to manipulate the media to make it look as if the Soviets started th fire?
Richard_SM #456: "Waterboarding is just a fraction of what's been going on. People have been systematically beaten up, been tied in stress positions for days, and been maimed for life. Plus murdered. And they are virtually all innocent people. Guantanamo Bay is only part of the picture. Abu Ghraib was only part of the picture. The torture story will not be swept under the carpet. It will run and run. There's far too many involved."
You honestly think that people were tortured on US soil? Gosh! That's a scary thought. Hopefully this time, unlike Vietnam, some people will be brought to trial and punished, not simply set free.
Complain about this comment
NoRash (#475) "I'm speaking as one who desperately wants the US to adopt the same practice!"
You had better get over the desperation, because it won't happen.
Complain about this comment
ukwales #460. . .
The last line of your post leads me to believe that you're joking, but just in case you're not, Florida, California, and the east coast of the US also have miles of beach, all be it certainly not all unspoiled. So if we're using the test of which country has more beautiful and/or unspoiled beaches on which people can walk down without fear or hassle as the measurment by which we determine which country has more freedom, I'm sorry but I think we need a more sound and serious test with which to compare.
I'm jealous that those movies are being shot there though, have fun watching all the action!
Complain about this comment
#477 Happy
We live in hope!
Complain about this comment
Gary_A_Hill #479. . .
"You had better get over the desperation, because it won't happen."
Why not?
Complain about this comment
Ref : 475. NoRashDecisions
You asked:
"What I was merely pointing out, which still stands true, is that once an opposition MP, or leader of the opposition party, or member of any other party, absolutely rakes the prime minister over the coals for all the nation to see, no matter how painful it may be for the prime minister at the time, once the whole House of Commons utterly laughs in derision at them and their often times eneptitude, is the prime minister then after Question Time has ended very often forced to change their ways? No."
Long sentence. Let me say this:
Q/ Does the weekly PM questions force change in government executive or policy?
A/ Sometimes (Numerous examples).
Ref #478.NoRashDecisions
The fact is, the fire was the reason used to change their laws. Who started the fire is irrelevant to the broader point being made. Check the finer detail of history if you want to know who was behind it.
Complain about this comment
Ref#470 Richard SM,
AlQueda training camp!!! the blighters.We all thought it was a new Butlins,
I was a little puzzled by that tall tower with the onion on the top,put it down to a skinny helter skeler.Must tell our local bobby " may the force be with you Griffiths",he will sort it!!.
Regards, from not quite so smug as before, Wales...
Complain about this comment
450, they never got me in!!!
484, that's not al queda it's the FWA (free wales army) lol!!
Seriously though i find Australia to be a mix of attidudes half Brit, half American (even though i'm not allowed into the states). Free speech is something of a 'moving feast' here depending on where you live, Melbourne, where i am is very leftist and is the power base of the Trade union movement and 'Socialist left' faction of the ruling Labor party, very euro in attitude, Sydney however is home to some total wingnuts like the Rev Fred Nile, also racial strife (see Crunulla) S.A is another thing all together and the only two positives with them is the best wine and it being legal to grow up to 12 cannabis plants in your back yard lol!! I can't comment on Queensland. W.A or the Northern territory as i've only briefly visited Qld for the football (soccer) sorry Sam!!
Basically what i can say in Melbourne could likely end in me being mangled or shot on a cattle station in rural Qld.
ukwales, my family have a small cottage in Solva and i swear it's the most beautiful landscape in the world!! oh, if you bump into Russell Crowe tell him to "pull his head in"
Complain about this comment
Ref#485,
Good to hear from another Taff.We all thought it was just a rumour that one
of us made to & in,the down under.Look after your self ,not too many of us left!!
Complain about this comment
Ah, ukwales, plenty of us uppity, stubborn Welsh down here mate!! even our fiery, red headed deputy PM (Julia Gillard) was born in Barry S wales!
I suspect our political viewpoints differ quite substantially but there again i have close friends at home who i argue and debate with in the boozer until we stagger to the nearest curry house together(-;
Bugger of a trip to Oz in a coracle mind lol!
Atten: Magic Kirrin, I'm sure you'll join me in congratulating comrade Rafael Correa on his huge endorsment by the people as president of Ecuador (-;!!! Free speech at it's best, don't you agree????
Moving home with my Aussie family for a year or two, getting the boys enrolled in a Welsh bi lingual school in Cardiff (if they can build them fast enough???) whilst i am on a secondment from my Union here to the TUC Wales (hopefully)
Complain about this comment
So who has more freedom of speech, the UK or America?
The question is easily and definitively answered with an observation and another question. It is a known fact that the Klu Klux Klan could legally obtain a permit and march down the main street of any town or city in America they dared show their hoods in. Even the ACLU's lawyers, among whom are Jews have and would continue to defend that right.
Could the Klu Klux Klan do the same anywhere in Britain? I don't think so.
As Michael Savage pointed out in his savage attack on Britain's so called democracy, the test of freedom of speech comes only when that speech is offenisve. Britain, you completely fail again. And you still have a terminal case of Eurosis of the Fliver too. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Complain about this comment
no rash
"The last line of your post leads me to believe that you're joking, but just in case you're not, Florida, California, and the east coast of the US also have miles of beach, all be it certainly not all unspoiled. So if we're using the test of which country has more beautiful and/or unspoiled beaches on which people can walk down without fear or hassle as the measurment by which we determine which country has more freedom, I'm sorry but I think we need a more sound and serious test with which to compare."
In the UK there are not quite so many private beaches.Beaches where the townsfolk have rules on who can go on the beach.
the other side of that is in the UK not all rivers are accessible.
oh and to all here.
"FREEDOM IS ABOUT MORE THAN WORDS"
Complain about this comment
451. happylaze:
lol dave
"So, both are free countries, but the word has different meaning in each."
But seeing as the language is called ENGLISH i suspect they have dibs on what the word means,in English.
----
Yes, it's their language. We're only borrowing it. That's what I say to Spanish-speaking Americans when they ask me why English spelling rules are so bizarre or why there are so many grammatical exceptions: Not our fault, it's the English. It's /their/ language, after all. Let /them/ fix it.
Complain about this comment
490 lol dave.
How do you explain the imperial system (which not even the UK uses)?
Complain about this comment
282. At 8:56pm on 10 May 2009, TimothyR444 wrote:
dianaatkin: "I disagree that the US is freer. Most news is baby pablum, the nation itself has been conditioned to say 'have a nice day', to avoid individualism & eccentricity. If you get famous you can have your say, but let's recall that Michael Moore was arrested during GW Bush's administration when he tried to say a few things and his DVD was coming out about 911 & the administration. I suspect most people get carted off by ambulance and labelled bi-polar if they attempt to protest singly or in a way that attracts attention. It's mainly a nation in ignorance unless they search out news about the outside world on the internet and it may presuppose a 'freer' attitude to speak out but none of them do because they have no idea that they're not necessarily the world's best at everything nation and there a plenty of things they could be protesting about - a socialised healthcare system for one, but they're conditioned to fear the word itself when in fact, Canada's 'socialist' healthcare system works very well and is a true representation of democracy, which is peace, order & good government for the people by the people."
This really is too good - the distilled essence of anti-American ideology at its crudest and most vulgar. (At least there are no mocking insults about 9/11)
When this sort of "thinking" is this widespread, it is impossible to argue.
There is no question there is absolutely nothing left of the old relations between Britain and the US. We we were once allies - perhaps not great friends and always somewhat distrustful of each other - but at least nominal allies. Now even that is gone, washed away in an avalanche of anti-Americanism.
Timothy can you blame me? The GW Bush administration and all it symbolises/ed was merely an arrival at the top of a constant theme or thread that had run through the US since its inception. Forget 'In God We Trust' it's ingot we trust. Read Webster's Guide to American History 1971 (Encyclo. Brittanica) & you'll see it's one invasion after another. Immigrants landing in a huge country find there's limited knowledge, so they actually leave it continually and reach out to other countries to ge their bearings!
Complain about this comment
"How do you explain the imperial system (which not even the UK uses)?"
No one can explain it. It is a cosmic mystery.
Complain about this comment
diana lol You made me think of another freedom the USA has that the UK doesn't.
The freedom to be conned into years of expensive anti depressants by big companies. the yolk of Prozac .
Good one cheers.
Adverts for all sorts drug that make you need the other sorts of drugs. all perfectly legal. PUSHING. because in the USA REAL drug dealers get to advertise on national TV.As long as you can't grow it yourself you can buy it.
Interesting.
And boy do they take advantage of that feedom.
Pretty high rates of people that are on drugs that "have no effect" on people. IE they cure depression but have no other effect?
Not likely.
Complain about this comment
493 dave. No argument there.
Next. can you explain why america still uses it;)?
That's another cosmic mystery.
And no unity with the freedom fighters that created america.
The French
Complain about this comment
It's my understanding that the pubs in the UK still sell imperial pints:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6988521.stm
A few years ago, Americans argued about metric conversion, but the controversy seems to have subsided (fortunately, in my view).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I find your comments more than offensive Marcus, as someone who suffers from acute clinical depression and spacial awareness disorder (both of which are proven chemical imbalances of the brain) i had to go through a nightmare of anti depressants before they found the one that worked i can assure you prozac was NEVER a consideration, therapy, sexual abuse counselling and a decent health service brought me back from the abyss!!!
PS, love a beer me (-;
Complain about this comment
America has too much freedom to speak. The Commonwealth of Pennsylania suffers from Edward Rendell's lack of budget efficiency. Yet, he views himself as a financial analyst. Who can trust the word of a politician swimming in his own red ink? Real competence is in the silence and frugality.
Complain about this comment
Yea for the Brit's!
We need to get ride all those "bad & evil" people who disagree with those of us who are "obviously progressive free thinkers"! That way the world would be so pleasant and we will all can live in peace and harmony!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS