band beyond description
3/16/2010 8:28:00 PM
On 2010-03-17 00:58:55 +0900, "DGDevin" <dgdevin@invalid.invalid> said:
>
> "band beyond description" <everybody's.doin@that.rag.com> wrote in message
> news:808rm2FktpU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> are you angling for your own radio show, DGD?
>
> Well I must be, because clearly standing up for free speech even when it's
> offensive to some (inlcuding when it's offensive to me) is the same thing as
> wanting to be just like Beck and Limbaugh and Hannity.
well, if we in the U.S. are to rely on the fox (no pun intended),
meaning the Congress, to guard the henhouse of the vulnerable citizenry
by legislating proper anti-hate laws on a par with the likes of
Germany, Denmark and Canada, then of course the U.S. reality dictates
that nothing on that count will ever see the light of day, and status
quo -- by definition the favored course for conservatives -- will
reign. but if you're proud of that outcome, there's nothing to do but
shrug.
>
>> you cited Canada, of which there are no shortage of GWBush-type fellow
>> travelers in the Conservative government and their right-wing media and
>> business sympathizers.
>
> Good grief, the average Canadian conservative is about as right-wing as
> Walter Mondale in a hockey jersey.
I bet I've come across more Canadians where I am in the space of a few
years than I you ever have, and those who give thought to such issues
will tell you that Canadians sometimes get a bit smug watching the
racial and other problems in the U.S. and forget that they have
ignorant, knuckle-dragging, racist??shitbirds of their own, coupled with
Murdoch-like Cro-magnon media entities like the National Post
newspaper. But generally there is an overriding Canadian national
interest in holding themselves to a higher standard and distinguishing
themselves from their southern neighbor on these universal,
beyond-rhetoric human rights-type issues.
>
>> but there is still a mile-wide difference between the basic identifying
>> pillars of tolerance as exemplified by Canada and its relevant laws on the
>> anti-hate issue, and the laissez-faire hands-off approach employed by the
>> U.S. against its native-born crackpots.
>
> "Tolerance" huh? But not tolerance for speech which someone in some
> minority group decides he doesn't like it. And if in the end the finding of
> human rights tribunals that punish people for unpopular speech are often
> overturned by the courts--but only after years of expensive litigation--well
> do you suppose the threat of prosecution for something the courts will
> *eventually* dismiss might have the proverbial dampening effect on speech?
> Ah, but I forget, free speech should only apply to opinions we agree with,
> so who cares if people with views we dislike are silenced, it's not like
> that could ever happen to *us*.
so *you* say. because I never said any of that. I am and have been
speaking not of (U.S.?) hypotheticals as you are, but of an objective,
universally defined body of rational, compassionate anti-hate/racism
law that proscribes hateful actions as well as communications. so, can
you please tell me what is wrong with such laws that have been
promulgated in Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Canada and elsewhere?
I guess that in your exceptionalist world view, we can never expect
hate to be properly legislated against (in the U.S.), then?
--
Peace,
Steve