Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jboy2000000]

Why do you people always remind me of quotes?
"As long as there is atleast two people left in the world, somebody is gonna want somebody dead."
-Sniper

[Sheb]

Yeah, I meant some. Sure you could argue that the ban on producing them is not a free speech issue, because you're just protecting someone. But what about distributing it? Or lolicon? That's definitely a limit on free speech.

As for Anwar Al-Aulaqi, he was certainly the Goebbels of Al-Qaeda, as his job was spinning propaganda. He was killed for expressing his ideas, no matter how extreme they were. Another limitation on free speech.

And the thought hat it was all ok because it was not on US territory is even more cynical than my view of the US.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Yeah, I meant some. Sure you could argue that the ban on producing them is not a free speech issue, because you're just protecting someone. But what about distributing it? Or lolicon? That's definitely a limit on free speech.

Distribution and possession of child pornography are both illegal because they give a market for the production of it, and the production of it is harmful to the child victims. The logic for art falling under the same category, if and when it does (it often doesn't), is a fuzzy theory that the art creates an interest for the real thing, which results in more abuses. Or it's just obscene, and I'm not sure that anyone really understands what that means. For what it's worth, anti-obscenity laws are unconstitutional in my state.

I have no disagreement with your conclusion that this is still a limit on free speech, regardless of the logic behind it. There are plenty of good reasons to limit free speech, and sometimes they're good enough to trump principle. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, and thereby creating a panic and possibly injuring or killing others indirectly, is a famous example of this from US legal history.

As for Anwar Al-Aulaqi, he was certainly the Goebbels of Al-Qaeda, as his job was spinning propaganda. He was killed for expressing his ideas, no matter how extreme they were. Another limitation on free speech.

You're cherry picking here. He was an active, ranking member and recruiter for a major international organized crime syndicate, was personally engaged in planning multiple mass murders, and had evaded capture for years. We actually have laws that criminalize participation in organized crime and conspiracy to murder. His assassination is a due process issue, not a free speech issue.

And the thought hat it was all ok because it was not on US territory is even more cynical than my view of the US.

I don't think anybody is saying that. Your claim was: "...you also have limits on free speech in the US. Supporting Al-Qaeda in your speech will get you a drone strike..." What I'm saying, and I assume EuchreJack as well, is that this is cynical far beyond what is factually supportable. There are limits to free speech in the US, but getting drone striked for speaking out in favor of al-Qaeda is not one of them.

[Sheb]

Okay, I get your points. I'll look into more details in the Al-Aulaqi case. As for limits of free speech, granted it's not "in the US", so I was factually wrong. But the US government has no qualm about crushing speech it doesn't like abroad.

But yeah, we're actually mostly in agreement, so yeah.

[Thecard]

Well, one thing about America is that it is not a true democracy.  Athens was a true democracy (except for the whole slavery and women's rights) but America is a representative democracy.  We're voting for someone who's going to vote for someone who hopefully votes for what we want.  This is because a true democracy would be almost impossible for a large country like the USA.  What this leads to is essentially an aristocracy.  You'll notice almost all politicians are rich and connected people.  This is because they have the money to advertise themselves, and they don't need to work for a living.  You cannot hold a job and run for office at the same time, politics is a full-time commitment.  That's why the first term for a candidate is usually the hardest, the money issue, and the issue of familiarity.  People go with what they know, even if it could be a worse choice.  And not just familiarity with the candidate, but the candidates experience with politics.  You'll find some people arguing for one candidate simply because they have had more experience with government.
That's why you see more white, rich men in office.  Rich, old, white men who are paid well, by the government.

Note: Though sometime poorly represented, we did vote for people on platforms, and we kept or took them out of office depending on if they stayed true.  We are to blame for these, really.  And you'll find that people want safety more than liberty.  That is why we have free speech, with rules like yelling fire in a theater, and advocating terrorists.

Anyway, that's how I see American politics, but the whole thing is a big mess.  I don't really know any two people who can agree about politics.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Athens was a direct democracy, the USA is a representative democracy. These are both real democracies. A false democracy would be a situation where the will of the people has no bearing on the decisions made by the government, but everyone thinks that it does.

[Thecard]

Athens was a direct democracy, the USA is a representative democracy. These are both real democracies. A false democracy would be a situation where the will of the people has no bearing on the decisions made by the government, but everyone thinks that it does.

Yeah, my diction needs work.  Sue me.

[brainfreez]

anyway , the democracy he meant was when nation votes for the one they think is the best and then the one goes and votes for others that are relatives to him and friends or whatever , so the nation has little power .
because maybe the nation wanted other leaders , not the family of the one .

[Jonathan S. Fox]

anyway , the democracy he meant was when nation votes for the one they think is the best and then the one goes and votes for others that are relatives to him and friends or whatever , so the nation has little power .
because maybe the nation wanted other leaders , not the family of the one .

The US dosen't have that problem to anywhere near the same degree that some democracies do. There's a very vigorous free press, and the public laps up news of scandalous and corrupt behavior like that, then eagerly roasts politicians who engage in it in the next election.

To the ancient Greeks, Aristocracy meant rule by the greatest and wisest people. The key principle of representative democracy isn't to prevent the rich and connected from running government, it's to prevent them from running government without regard for anyone else. Power can still be concentrated with an elite group, but it must be conditional on the approval of the public.

[brainfreez]

i don't live in America and i don't know much about its politics , so i will stay out of this political derail .
i hope this derail will lead to new ideas and stuff for the LCS .

[Thecard]

i don't live in America and i don't know much about its politics , so i will stay out of this political derail .
i hope this derail will lead to new ideas and stuff for the LCS .

Yeah, we kinda got off topic, didn't we? And yeah, maybe something for the game will come out of this.

[celem]

I always kinda hoped that now we have such a strong information system available (the net) we could actually pull off the direct hardcore 1-man, 1-vote democracy.  Would be an interesting system.  I always felt the setup now reminded me strongly of Republican Rome which I guess became representitive democracy at some point, my politics isnt strong enough to define where that line is.

Some countries do hold large-scale referrendums but its limited usually to momentous events.  The best examples I can think of are European Countries going yes/no on the EU and Euro.  Typicaly these are plagued by low participation anyway.  Voter Apathy is the true enemy, not Conservatism.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You can usually counter voter apathy by making voting mandatory on penalty of fine. Even a small fine. People will go out of their way to not lose money. In fact, it's an even better idea since it will provoke the poor to vote more than anyone else.

[celem]

It would entirely change world politics to be honest if you could get them all to vote.

Theres this issue where the only ones who care are the ones who vote for the muppets.  The year they launched the Pirate Party in sweden they saw a record turnout as masses of usually non-voters put 8 members in our version of the house, people didnt switch, just a whole new voter block suddenly appeared.  First time I voted, was 28

[brainfreez]

yes , in Europe we all vote for what we want and actually people are very active at voting .