Freedom of speech takes another tumble....

[Coito ergo sum]

How is it not? You're stopping someone from expressing themselves because you disagree with the idea.

Example: I am free to have the idea to punch a person in the face. I'm even free to talk about how good it would feel to punch that person in the face, and how I wish it was legal to punch that person in the face. However, actually punching him in the face is "action" and is quite different from thoughts and words.

It's like NORML talking about marijuana, saying how marijuana is good, lobbying for the reform and repeal of marijuana laws, telling everyone that smoking marijuana is good and healthy, and nonaddictive, etc. vs. actually selling and smoking marijuana.

[Coito ergo sum]

Want more examples of free thought? How about Yemen? Surely it would be a drastic loss to civil rights if we protected nine year old girls from being raped. How dare we legislate against ideas!

Making an age of consent is not the same as legislating against the idea of having sex with younger people.

For example, if country X has a rule that all sex between an adult and a child under the age of 16 is statutory rape, then that prohibits the act of having sex with a child under the age of 16. However, it does not prohibit the advocacy of the benefits of sex under the age of 16, and that the age of consent should be lowered or eliminated altogether.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8656634.stm

Yay free thought! What wonders it brings to the world!

In the Dem Rep of Congo, they don't have freedom of speech, as the government violates speech and press freedoms. There were several reports of security forces attacking, arresting, detaining, threatening, or harassing journalists. Authorities ordered several radio and television stations to temporarily cease operations for violating the media code of conduct, particularly during the election campaign.

Freedom of thought and expression, indeed. A bit more of it might be good for the Congo.

[Coito ergo sum]

In many cases, certain things were accepted historical events or perspectives and then later found out to be wrong, mythological, unsupported by the evidence, etc. Sometimes, certain aspects or details of historical events are CORRECTLY revised.

What historical details have holocaust deniers corrected and is being suppressed by other historians?

It's not just about what "other historians" are doing or not doing. It's also about popular ideas about what went on. And, its simply about the right of a person to research and write on any topic a person sees fit. Historians don't have the power to "suppress" other people's ideas, the State does that by enacting criminal laws. What I'm suggesting is that if Joe Shmo wants to challenge the research of any historian, that is his right.

[Coito ergo sum]

They're a committee that sets astronomical standards. They recently changed Pluto's status from a planet to a planetoid. They also name or number celestial objects.

Astronomical standards aren't facts nor history.

And, it's not illegal to challenge astronomical standards as ill-advised, inaccurate, or in need of revision.

[Martok]

They're a committee that sets astronomical standards. They recently changed Pluto's status from a planet to a planetoid. They also name or number celestial objects.

Astronomical standards aren't facts nor history.

Astronomical standards are based on the best available facts.

[Martok]

In many cases, certain things were accepted historical events or perspectives and then later found out to be wrong, mythological, unsupported by the evidence, etc. Sometimes, certain aspects or details of historical events are CORRECTLY revised.

What historical details have holocaust deniers corrected and is being suppressed by other historians?

It's not just about what "other historians" are doing or not doing. It's also about popular ideas about what went on. And, its simply about the right of a person to research and write on any topic a person sees fit. Historians don't have the power to "suppress" other people's ideas, the State does that by enacting criminal laws. What I'm suggesting is that if Joe Shmo wants to challenge the research of any historian, that is his right.

If Nazi joe shmo wants to write shit history, let him. But he can't go around parading it and not expect it to be challenged.

Btw, has stormfront been shut down? Is the founder of that website in prison?

[Coito ergo sum]

They're a committee that sets astronomical standards. They recently changed Pluto's status from a planet to a planetoid. They also name or number celestial objects.

Astronomical standards aren't facts nor history.

Astronomical standards are based on the best available facts.

Please clarify what you mean by "astronomical standard."

[owtth]

From The Onion




The full story is even better

http://www.theonion.com/articles/suprem ... eni,17372/

Edit for worthwhile quote:

Thomas wrote. "But those pricks can take their arguments about speech that 'appeals only to prurient interests' and go suck a dog's asshole."

Added Thomas, "Just suck it. Get in there and seriously suck it."

[Coito ergo sum]

In many cases, certain things were accepted historical events or perspectives and then later found out to be wrong, mythological, unsupported by the evidence, etc. Sometimes, certain aspects or details of historical events are CORRECTLY revised.

What historical details have holocaust deniers corrected and is being suppressed by other historians?

It's not just about what "other historians" are doing or not doing. It's also about popular ideas about what went on. And, its simply about the right of a person to research and write on any topic a person sees fit. Historians don't have the power to "suppress" other people's ideas, the State does that by enacting criminal laws. What I'm suggesting is that if Joe Shmo wants to challenge the research of any historian, that is his right.

If Nazi joe shmo wants to write shit history, let him. But he can't go around parading it and not expect it to be challenged.

Well, of course not. Nobody can expect to be free from challenge. Free speech also means the right to criticize the speech of other people. Just because Joe Shmo publishes a book doesn't mean we can't call it bunk and him an asshat Nazi.

Btw, has stormfront been shut down? Is the founder of that website in prison?

I don't know. But a Christian preacher was arrested in the UK for calling homosexuality a sin.

[Martok]

Btw, has stormfront been shut down? Is the founder of that website in prison?

I don't know. But a Christian preacher was arrested in the UK for calling homosexuality a sin.

Stormfront is still operational, and its founder freely donates to presidential candidates like Ron Paul.

As for that preacher...

bad day for him.

[Coito ergo sum]

Btw, has stormfront been shut down? Is the founder of that website in prison?

I don't know. But a Christian preacher was arrested in the UK for calling homosexuality a sin.

Stormfront is still operational, and its founder freely donates to presidential candidates like Ron Paul.

So what?

As for that preacher...

bad day for him.

Well, when an atheist gets arrested for inciting hatred against a religious group for claiming they are deluded dupes and ignorant morons, it will be a bad day for us. Remember, we are a not well-liked minority in most places.

[Martok]

Stormfront is still operational, and its founder freely donates to presidential candidates like Ron Paul.

So what?

I don't see them being forced to shut down their website.

Well, when an atheist gets arrested for inciting hatred against a religious group for claiming they are deluded dupes and ignorant morons, it will be a bad day for us. Remember, we are a not well-liked minority in most places.

Not the same thing. When a religious nut speaks up against homosexuals they mean to deny them basic human rights. When and atheist speak up against a religious nuts, its to ridicule them.

[Coito ergo sum]

Stormfront is still operational, and its founder freely donates to presidential candidates like Ron Paul.

So what?

I don't see them being forced to shut down their website.

So what? I'm not following you. Do you think I made the claim that Stormfront doesn't or shouldn't have the right to have a website?

Well, when an atheist gets arrested for inciting hatred against a religious group for claiming they are deluded dupes and ignorant morons, it will be a bad day for us. Remember, we are a not well-liked minority in most places.

Not the same thing. When a religious nut speaks up against homosexuals they mean to deny them basic human rights. When and atheist speak up against a religious nuts, its to ridicule them.

Well, says you. Many millions of religious folk differ with your assessment on that, and that's why many millions of people around the world are trying to reinstate blasphemy laws and to include "religion" as a protected group in hate crime laws (and in many cases they are successful in doing that). There has been criminal prosecutions in Canada, for example, for people ridiculing religious groups.

Further, it is your OPINION that when a religious nut speaks up they mean to deny them basic human rights. You don't know what they "really" mean any more than they know what you "really" mean. In their view, I've heard them say, they are speaking up for morality and for their values.

Anyway, you can't deny anyone "human rights" by voicing an opinion. Even if my opinion is that slavery should be reinstituted in the United States, that is not a violation of anyone's human rights and the fact that it may well be that I "mean" to deny people of their basic human rights doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to voice my opinion should it?

There are plenty of people who say atheists "mean" end religion, and prohibit people's private exercise of religion. That's what many people think we "mean." Most of us would take issue with that, and clarify that we generally support the right of people to practice their religions. However, that doesn't change the fact that they think we "mean" otherwise. Surely you can step back and see that your opinion about what people "mean" doesn't have some legal primacy, and there is no objective source of knowledge on that point, is there?

[Martok]

Stormfront is still operational, and its founder freely donates to presidential candidates like Ron Paul.

So what?

I don't see them being forced to shut down their website.

So what? I'm not following you. Do you think I made the claim that Stormfront doesn't or shouldn't have the right to have a website?

Stormfront is full of holocaust deniers and nobody is denying them their right to utter bullshit.

Further, it is your OPINION that when a religious nut speaks up they mean to deny them basic human rights. You don't know what they "really" mean any more than they know what you "really" mean. In their view, I've heard them say, they are speaking up for morality and for their values.

LOL!! A religious nuts mission is to take away gay rights!!!