Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
At 08:19 PM 12/31/03 -0500, John Kelsey wrote: At 05:56 PM 12/30/03 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: If I were a neocon asshole, I would. Instead, I regard liberation as a local task, and interfering with sovereignty as the initiation of force, ie an act of war. Well, clearly bombing and invading them was an initiation of force, in the most literal sense--we shot first. But while I can see that individuals have a right that you violate by initiating force against them, I don't see how that can apply to governments, especially governments whose main method of keeping power involves terrorizing their citizens. (What, you mean like using the US police to deprive us of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?) My neighbors subject their offspring to a kind of abuse commonly called religion. Do I have a right to intercede? They are not harming *me*. Stay out of others family spats. Or as Gen'l W said, Trade with all, make treaties with none, and beware of foreign entanglements. (Mind you, as an reformed Objectivist, I do believe in absolute right and wrong; but does this give me the right to initiate force to clue you in? When do we start bombing Berlin?)
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
At 05:56 PM 12/30/03 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 07:48 PM 12/26/03 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: Then I guess you better start liberating the world. If I were a neocon asshole, I would. Instead, I regard liberation as a local task, and interfering with sovereignty as the initiation of force, ie an act of war. Well, clearly bombing and invading them was an initiation of force, in the most literal sense--we shot first. But while I can see that individuals have a right that you violate by initiating force against them, I don't see how that can apply to governments, especially governments whose main method of keeping power involves terrorizing their citizens. Did the Iraqi government have a right to stay in power, or at least not to be invaded? Where did that right come from? From the rights of its people, most of whom apparently didn't have a hell of a lot good to say about it? (That doesn't mean they like *us*, of course.) In the most morally neutral case, this is like one criminal gang attacking another. If the Sopprano family invades the Bozini family's turf, takes over their protection rackets, and hunts down their godfather, it could be messy, and it really will be an initiation of force in the most literal sense. But is this the same kind of initiation of force that we normally talk about when, say, a mugger knocks me over the head and takes my laptop and wallet? (And of course, it's not that morally neutral. It's more like a bunch of vigilantes from the neighborhood next door getting rid of the gang running your neighborhood, for reasons of their own, but probably to your benefit.) None of this means it made any sense for us to invade Iraq, or that we did it mainly to liberate oppressed Iraqi citizens. But I think using the same kind of language for interactions between individuals and between governments is a mistake. --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: FA48 3237 9AD5 30AC EEDD BBC8 2A80 6948 4CAA F259
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
At 05:19 PM 12/31/2003, John Kelsey wrote: In the most morally neutral case, this is like one criminal gang attacking another. If the Sopprano family invades the Bozini family's turf, takes over their protection rackets, and hunts down their godfather, it could be messy, and it really will be an initiation of force in the most literal sense. But is this the same kind of initiation of force that we normally talk about when, say, a mugger knocks me over the head and takes my laptop and wallet? (And of course, it's not that morally neutral. It's more like a bunch of vigilantes from the neighborhood next door getting rid of the gang running your neighborhood, for reasons of their own, but probably to your benefit.) Although I disagree with the personal benefit aspect, this is the way I view the two major US poltical parties: two mob organizations fighting over turf and tax spoils. I think its time to clean up the D.C. (Augean) Stables. ND
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
Major Variola (ret) wrote: TV stations which exploit the aetherial commons are a tricky case. The government licensors have to be very careful not to induce censorship. Yet, the FCC has guidelines what can and cannot be aired. Thus no free speech as you claim it to be. Michael
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
At 10:52 AM 12/27/03 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: So a question for you: If I want to write a book on the history of the swastika, or teach about the holocuast in Germany, do I need a license or something? (And let's just assume I have a politically correct view.) To my understanding Historical documents are exempt from this. My Handbook of Regular Patterns (Stevens) includes Swastikas under the obvious symmetry group. Do I need a license?
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
As long as truth is no defense against hate speech, and hate speech includes things which clearly don't involve anyone hating anyone else, hate speech is simply a code phrase for suppressing free expression. At worst. At best it's going to boil down to some local enforcement shitheel taking it upon himself to be the arbiter of issues he'll have no ability to comprehend. -TD From: Eric Cordian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Singers jailed for lyrics Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:51:38 -0800 (PST) Michael writes: Being from Germany I would like to detest that statement. The German law clearly defines what is hate speech. It is not an easy task as you can see in a six month trial. It is the outcome of the trial which condemns Germany. THe length of the trial is an unimportant data point. THe law clearly defines hate speech as the communication of any information which might tend to cause people to be displeased with a particular religious or ethnic group, whether or not the information is true. People in Germany have been jailed under the hate speech laws for simply suggesting in written editorials that the Jewish people might act collectively in their own enlightened self-interest. As long as truth is no defense against hate speech, and hate speech includes things which clearly don't involve anyone hating anyone else, hnate speech is simply a code phrase for suppressing free expression. Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. And I would like to add that most of these laws were made up by the allies (read US and Britain). Yes, the Allies have done an excellent job of redirecting German jackbooted obnoxiousness back at the German people. Do you have a point here? There is no ultimate free speech as the US promises, but let's be serious here for a moment: The US is not as free as people like to think. The US isn't free at all. However, most US citizens support freedom to have opinions and to express them. Germans have to ask their government for permission to think. Most Germans think this is a good thing, by the way. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law _ Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
On Dec 27, 2003, at 10:40 AM, Michael Kalus wrote: That you have extremists who will use the past as the main argument for their reasoning can be clearly seen by your own views. There is no difference between people like you and jews (or any other extreme zealot) who tries to push his or her own agenda. There is in fact a _very_ important difference, one you should think carefully about: the issue of force. In Germany, men with guns arrest those who sing songs which are not PC. I have no such power to use force to arrest those who use words I don't like. This is the essence of liberty. It's all about the initiation of force, versus free choice. In a free system, those who don't want to see swastikas or here prejudiced speech will take steps to avoid concerts where such symbols or words are used, will use the OFF switch on their radios and televisions when such symbols or speech appears, and will avoid visiting Web sites which offend them. Choice. And responsibility. They may even hire others to act as watchdogs or censors to screen material which may offend them. This is what ratings systems are all about. And closed communities. And voluntary associations. However, in a free society they may not use guns or force to stop what other people are reading or viewing or singing. Think about it. Carefully. Read up on some of the basics. You are on the wrong mailing list if you are as statist as you appear to be. --Tim May
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
Michael writes: Being from Germany I would like to detest that statement. The German law clearly defines what is hate speech. It is not an easy task as you can see in a six month trial. It is the outcome of the trial which condemns Germany. THe length of the trial is an unimportant data point. THe law clearly defines hate speech as the communication of any information which might tend to cause people to be displeased with a particular religious or ethnic group, whether or not the information is true. People in Germany have been jailed under the hate speech laws for simply suggesting in written editorials that the Jewish people might act collectively in their own enlightened self-interest. As long as truth is no defense against hate speech, and hate speech includes things which clearly don't involve anyone hating anyone else, hnate speech is simply a code phrase for suppressing free expression. Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. And I would like to add that most of these laws were made up by the allies (read US and Britain). Yes, the Allies have done an excellent job of redirecting German jackbooted obnoxiousness back at the German people. Do you have a point here? There is no ultimate free speech as the US promises, but let's be serious here for a moment: The US is not as free as people like to think. The US isn't free at all. However, most US citizens support freedom to have opinions and to express them. Germans have to ask their government for permission to think. Most Germans think this is a good thing, by the way. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 27-Dec-03, at 9:53 AM, Tyler Durden wrote: All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the reason) why they banned Wolfenstein 3D. Interesting. So even if the swatsika is protrayed as a bad thing (to the point of practically being a bullseye) it's banned. So...can you have swastikas in Textbooks? Perhaps 100 years from now the Holocaust will be forgotten. Of course, that'll make Tim May happy because then it could happen all over again. So a question for you: If I want to write a book on the history of the swastika, or teach about the holocuast in Germany, do I need a license or something? (And let's just assume I have a politically correct view.) To my understanding Historical documents are exempt from this. Wolfenstein was banned in the end because the symbols where used in Entertainment. If it is a historical drama in which the Symbols appear this seems to be permissible as well. If you put one on your jacket though and walk around with it in the streets they can get you. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+2q3mlCnxcrW2uuEQLSggCfYUtI+BIz6KVZzpWHUyq28DpGEm8AoME9 3OJy6lG0zwAsFacIwujAZswI =/pq7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 10:52:57AM -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: If it is a historical drama in which the Symbols appear this seems to be permissible as well. If you put one on your jacket though and walk around with it in the streets they can get you. I guess The Producers will never make it to Berlin. It's really funny. Your loss.
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
A Berlin criminal court sentenced 38-year-old Michael Regener to 40 months in prison after a six-month trial that tested the boundaries of free expression in a nation with strict laws against hate speech. Of course, that should be a nation with strict laws against free speech. Crying Hate Speech is the last resort of people who cannot debate what is being said and convince anyone. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 26-Dec-03, at 12:37 PM, Eric Cordian wrote: A Berlin criminal court sentenced 38-year-old Michael Regener to 40 months in prison after a six-month trial that tested the boundaries of free expression in a nation with strict laws against hate speech. Of course, that should be a nation with strict laws against free speech. Crying Hate Speech is the last resort of people who cannot debate what is being said and convince anyone. Being from Germany I would like to detest that statement. The German law clearly defines what is hate speech. It is not an easy task as you can see in a six month trial. Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. And I would like to add that most of these laws were made up by the allies (read US and Britain). There is no ultimate free speech as the US promises, but let's be serious here for a moment: The US is not as free as people like to think. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+yRcmlCnxcrW2uuEQKDZACfc63XujDFQOJ+bcyGq1xtQc8l1yYAoNd1 vcmRWdOkxly/219fuaNHB/kL =lA06 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
