[MK] You on the other hand have your own Bogus-mans: KKK, Nazis, bomb tossing crazies, to name a few. The Red Herring Boys.
[Arlo] The "speech" in the example of posters depicting Jews as rats is a fair example of what should constitute "free speech". Was it harmful? Did it "incite violence"? Should similar posters today be censored? Nazism was not a point I made at all, my reference was only in regard to the anti-Semitic speech that preceded the Holocaust. The "Anarchist's Cookbook" is a book that finds itself in court frequently, I would think concrete examples from the real world would be important in this discussion. [MK] Control through Fear is one, and you use it well ( see above ). Admit it. [Arlo] The "control through fear" of Orwell involved the State declaring a "Great Enemy", punishing anyone who dared to speak against the State's "war" against this enemy, and kept the citizenry in check through constant news programs placing this "enemy" just over the hill. In this sense, Orwell's vision has come true. From the introduction to "The Power of Nightmare" (BBC). "In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed. And today, people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life. But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand." [MK] It has yet to be "legally" proven that Wilders incites violence. Therefore your question is moot, sir. [Arlo] Has it been "legally" proven that the Koran incites violence? Do you side with Wilders that it should be outlawed on that charge? [MK] His position on the works of Hitler and Allah and free speech in general are reasonable. Google. Not an Orwellian Statist. [Arlo] Reasonable? How so? Please explain this. Do you think laws outlawing "Mein Kampf" are "reasonable"? Do you think his position on outlawing the Koran is "reasonable"? [MK] But the main theme of 1984 is control of populace through control of language, words. As far as I remember. [Arlo] And keep in mind that newspeak is not limited to "leftists", as some would claim. Examples such as "The Patriot Act" stand as glorious examples to Orwell's vision. [MK] Is declaring a subset of all possible expressions off limits and punishable by law not Orwellian? Am I really fear mongering? [Arlo] As I said, I think society has a reasonable right to become involved when the speech can be shown to incite violence against its citizens. This applies to both Muslims and Wilder, to anti-Semitic posters and books showing dummies how to build powerful bombs, to rallies by the KKK and the Black Panthers. I'd say, of course, its better to err on the side of freedom when there is doubt, but these lines are difficult to assess... which is why we have courts. [MK] I believe you agree with me in general. You stated as much. [Arlo] I don't know what your position is. It seemed to be a "never ban any speech no matter what" stance that has morphed into support for banning the Koran, Muslim culture and "Mein Kampf". [MK] But I am waiting for you to admit that "hate speech" is a load of b.s. [Arlo] Don't hold your breath. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
