Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

[Jarre]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

I was hoping for some debate on that point

The fact is as long as there is a control over people, their beleifs, their way of life etc. scirmishes will happen, by control I mean whether religeous, governmental or peer.

[DakAttack]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Cue Equillibrium.

Sense offense!

[DieselBoy09]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Its not really a war of religion, more like a war with a mass that does not understand its own religion. In the very beginning surahs of the Qu'ran it very explicitly states that Christians, Jews and Sabaeans are brothers and are admitted into heaven as being "of the book" (5:69 if you really want to look it up). I agree that things are to be won within the hearts and minds of the people, but I do believe that to some degree there does need to be control of expression with these things a little. The views that get expressed are very entrenched in the masjids (mosques) and most imams disseminate very biased, warped opinions and views. It takes place not only here, but even more so across the ocean, especially in the U.K. We as a people on the outside have very little chance to change their minds or opinions in my opinion without propaganda of our own or controlling the expressed opinions. In the very least I feel that the websites that disseminate these hateful mantras should be taken down, seeing as that is easier and far less offensive than going into a masjid and removing the imams and placing state approved ones, that would have a horrific backlash. Besides that the change needs to come completely from within, and for the most part the Islamic community here and abroad is not ready or willing for such change. My girlfriend and I talk about this a lot as she plans of going into something like this in the future, she sees how her faith is distorted and taught and she laments endlessly. I fervently believe that if you weed out those sources of information it is a very minimal act that buys time, that will at least help fight the indoctrination of the youth to a degree. The rest, we as outsiders can only really sit on our hands and understand their views so that we can properly counter them without bigotry and fear, treat them as normal individuals so that there is no disparity. *sigh* even then, this is very complicated and I just woke up so I apologize if this is choppy or vague. I might come back later and alter it, or not, we'll see. (btw, change is very hard to create in the way these people view these things, the prominent moderate Islamic groups in America have to go into hiding frequently because they receive so much hostility. Its astonishing, but any act to change the basic mentalities in the least are received with violence and death threats)

[Feba]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

You seem to be unable to comprehend that concept,

I comprehend it just fine. Preventing accidents before they happen is fine. Comparing sending an innocent person to moving an inanimate object is insane.

She commited a clear and very blatant crime

That's fine. That does not mean that she has free speech. You can call it a crime all day long; the fact is this: She is being punished for her thoughts (specifically, what she read), and not because she was actually harming people. The only real defense to that is to say that free speech is a bad idea, which it might well be. Really, either you support free speech and disagree with this, or you don't support free speech and you are free to have whatever opinion you want on the matter. There's no way to support free speech, but just not for some people.

yet here I am considering that the rights of *everyone* in that mall were infringed upon by that one crazy SoB.

Indeed they were. However, is locking up innocent people on the off chance that they might cause injury to others a good idea? I have an uncle that's lived with me for nearly a decade now; he's in his 30s and doesn't really seem to have much in the way of friends or relationships. He collects guns. He plays violent video games. in fact, on more than one occasion I've seen him stomp to the door in underwear holding a shotgun. He's even shot a hole in the roof before. He could very well be considered a dangerous person by some, but does that mean he should be locked up?

It's been proven that video games *aren't* responsible for violent actions.

It's also been proven, by the same logic, that having radical opinions, reading radical literature, and saying radical things does not mean you are going to physically harm anyone.

Who are you to say what my rights are?

What makes you think I'm deciding rights myself? Freedom of speech is to allow people to be living humans, without having to live in fear of the state or keep their thoughts secret. Gun ownership has no real benefits to a person or to society. And before you get on the whole self-defense angle, nearly any country that has outlawed gun ownership would prove you wrong.
You said to stop them before they did anything

Again, laws will always limit one's 'freedoms'.

Possibly, but they do not limit rights if they are properly constructed. You are right that laws are there to protect people, and that's all they need to do. Basically, your rights only end where mine begin- if your 'freedoms' require or make it extremely likely that you harm or obstruct me, that is unbalanced, and I am not free.

...you don't drive at all do you?

You don't pay attention, do you? It has been proven that a lack of speed limits or even any traffic management at all can actually be far safer. For example, some town in Europe (in either the Netherlands or Norway) had a roundabout with lights, sidewalks, crosswalks, etc, and had a scarily large amount of traffic fatalities and collisions. They took that out and replaced it with a simple brick roadway, with barely any barriers between pedestrians and traffic, and it has been both more efficient in terms of traffic volume, and safer. I believe the theory is that without signs directing traffic, people are forced to pay more attention to what's around them; be that other cars, bicycles, foot traffic, or whatever else is in the streets.

There is also the classic example of Germany's autobahn, which last I checked has far fewer collisions per mile traveled than the US Interstate system.

There, see, I insulted our president. I'm not being arrested.

Again, being able to say some things is not equal to freedom of speech. Being able to insult your government does not mean you live in a free society, it just means your government allows you to criticize it.

She wasn't arrested JUST for reading terrorist stuff,

Yes, she was. Did you read the court statements at all? She was charged for reading material that 'could' be useful to terrorists, not writing poetry, by their words. Again, I've read plenty of material that could be useful to terrorists myself, that does not make me a terrorist. Some of my opinions might even considered radical, that does not mean I'm staging a rebellion against the government.

Stating a desire to do something does not mean you will actually do it. I have, out of anger, stated many times to friends that I wish I could seriously injure Comcast's bigwigs. That doesn't mean I'd even have it in me to shove a pie in their face or egg their house if I was given the opportunity. What people say is not equivalent to actions, and unless there is a direct and obvious threat (such as calling and saying there is a bomb), it is not harming anyone.

Are we destined to deal with effects and chalk it up to a unfortunate byproduct of the liberties we claim to be inherent?

Sadly, yes. Freedom is not free. If you support it, of course you have to fight for it against powers that would take it, both domestic and foreign, but there is also going to be murder and death as long as there is ill intent in people's hearts. However, oppressing freedoms does not help this. Treating people right-- fair taxation, for example, is a far better way to keep people from turning violent and rebellious. There is still always going to be a price to pay for Freedom, though, no matter what you do, but it's far better than the alternatives.

[Raydeus]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Is it just me or this is just like the Boston thing with the electronic signs from some adult swim show?

But I guess at least they had way more reasons to worry in this case.

[Feba]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Not really. That was people putting advertisements on other people's property, which was retarded enough in the first place-- and then an overreaction by police to remove said items because they didn't recognize what they were. It doesn't really have anything to do with free speech because those people were infringing on other people's rights (namely property) to do it.

[Mr.Trilby]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

You don't pay attention, do you? It has been proven that a lack of speed limits or even any traffic management at all can actually be far safer. For example, some town in Europe (in either the Netherlands or Norway) had a roundabout with lights, sidewalks, crosswalks, etc, and had a scarily large amount of traffic fatalities and collisions. They took that out and replaced it with a simple brick roadway, with barely any barriers between pedestrians and traffic, and it has been both more efficient in terms of traffic volume, and safer. I believe the theory is that without signs directing traffic, people are forced to pay more attention to what's around them; be that other cars, bicycles, foot traffic, or whatever else is in the streets.

There is also the classic example of Germany's autobahn, which last I checked has far fewer collisions per mile traveled than the US Interstate system.

Sorry to drag this thread back up but, 2/3 of the Autobahn has speed restrictions.

[Feba]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

I was just using it as an example that speed limits != safety, and can actually be more dangerous.

[Mr.Trilby]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

I know but i'm a bastard and have to correct people. Blame it on my English private school up brining. I do agree with you though, there's a road running through some woods ( forests ) next to my house. There was a nasty time last year when people used to race up here so the local government felt like they should add a speed limit. Now, there had been no crashes since i've lived here ( almost 15 years ) but now in the twelve months the speed limit has been up theres been five crashes, two of them fatal. Not nice when you hear a smash from your bedroom in the morning and look out to see a car splattered all over your front garden.

[Feba]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

You're not really correcting anything, though. I know that much of the autobahn is regulated (I knew about cities and certain areas, didn't know it was as much as 2/3rds, but still), and I never said it has no speed limits, I just said it's the classic example.

/More of a bastard
//Homeschooled

[Mr.Trilby]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

That's really funny actually. Because i grew up in a posh area all my mates were either private schooled or home schooled. We'd always have a yearly challenge to see who could be the biggest bastard. Home schooled always won.

[Feba]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

That's really funny actually. Because i grew up in a posh area all my mates were either private schooled or home schooled. We'd always have a yearly challenge to see who could be the biggest bastard. Home schooled always won.

You know, it's hard to tell when you're joking and when you're not.

[Mr.Trilby]

Re: Sorry Britain. No free speach for you.

Thats cause i'm not funny. But that actually happened.