RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs

RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Lordandmaster -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/22/2008 5:48:35 PM)
Actually, atrocities usually take place in states where bad laws reign supreme. What is really disgusting about the so-called War on Terror, to use your example, is that we are perverting our own legal system in order to pursue it. Cute to quote the Dhammapada, but it's totally irrelevant since I don't agree that criticizing a bad French law qualifies as accumulating a drop of evil. I've just about reached the point that I think this thread has run its course. We all agree that racists are a scourge. We all agree that the world would be better off without them. We don't agree that curtailing speech is the best way to make that dream a reality. We may just have to leave it at that. quote: ORIGINAL: cjan quote: Criticizing a bad French law is hardly the same thing as invading Iraq. Come on, let's have a little perspective. It's not heartening to see lefties being as reductionist as righties these days. Is that so ? Think about it. There have been many examples in history where large crimes and atrocities have begun with small assumptions and actions. The same holds true in individual lives. As the Buddha said, " Even as a water-pot is filled by the falling of drops, so the wise man, gathering it drop by drop, fills himself with good. So ,also as a water-pot is filled by the falling of drops, so the fool, gathering it drop bt drop, fills himself with evil."

cjan -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/22/2008 6:00:18 PM)
L&M, you miss my point, sir. Some folks just see what they wanna see and hear what they wanna hear. And thanks for your opinion that this thread "has run it's course". You wouldn't want those who might disagree with you to have their freedom of speech curtailed, would you now ?

RealityLicks -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/22/2008 6:01:35 PM)
[:D]

meatcleaver -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/22/2008 11:29:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pollux quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol The distrust of the State is a very American thing: it has shaped the posters' reaction on this thread, for sure. The European posters are much more mitigated in their opinion over this issue... give or take an exception or two. Which is a little ironic for a country that flies so many national flags and has its children swear an oath of alligence every day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette True but as my brother points out when I ask him why he has his kids do it. The social pressure is enormous to conform in America and no one wants to be accused of being unpatriotic.

pollux -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/23/2008 4:48:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: pollux quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol The distrust of the State is a very American thing: it has shaped the posters' reaction on this thread, for sure. The European posters are much more mitigated in their opinion over this issue... give or take an exception or two. Which is a little ironic for a country that flies so many national flags and has its children swear an oath of alligence every day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette True but as my brother points out when I ask him why he has his kids do it. The social pressure is enormous to conform in America and no one wants to be accused of being unpatriotic. Bullshit. If your brother is forcing his kids to say the pledge against their will, he has exactly one person to blame.

meatcleaver -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/23/2008 5:05:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pollux quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: pollux quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol The distrust of the State is a very American thing: it has shaped the posters' reaction on this thread, for sure. The European posters are much more mitigated in their opinion over this issue... give or take an exception or two. Which is a little ironic for a country that flies so many national flags and has its children swear an oath of alligence every day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette True but as my brother points out when I ask him why he has his kids do it. The social pressure is enormous to conform in America and no one wants to be accused of being unpatriotic. Bullshit. If your brother is forcing his kids to say the pledge against their will, he has exactly one person to blame. Yeah, his American wife. I always said he was a patsy.

kittinSol -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/23/2008 6:06:00 AM)
In the end, nobody's explained why that particular law is bad. Seems to me they argue purely on the principle that the law in question can be abused, but they forget that there are specific provisions that make it impossible for that to happen.

pollux -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/23/2008 11:27:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol In the end, nobody's explained why that particular law is bad. Seems to me they argue purely on the principle that the law in question can be abused, but they forget that there are specific provisions that make it impossible for that to happen. No, they argue purely on the principle that the remedy for offensive speech is more speech. If there's a bigot or a racist in your midst wouldn't you prefer to know that? You can then either avoid them, or shun them, or try to educate and redeem them. But if everyone is forced to comply with some state-mandated sense of what is and what is not politically correct (as decided by whom, btw?), then you've just pushed the racism & bigotry into the shadows. You only like this law because it agrees with your sensibilities ("saying mean things about Muslims is BAD!! Throw the mean -- and UGLY!! -- lady in jail, NOW!!"). But suppose a conservative political action committee came to power and managed to get a similar law passed making Bardot-esque speech against George Bush & "the neocons" a jailable offense. Something tells me you'd change your tune and become a staunch advocate of the First Amendment.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/23/2008 12:23:53 PM)
Kittin, those "specific provisions" are exactly what makes this a bad law. Those specific provisions, as you've quoted them, are found in OTHER foundational statements of French law, and this particular law contradicts them. On the one hand, criticizing people for their beliefs is outlawed by this law; on the other hand, French legal theory supposedly upholds a right to free expression of one's opinions. How do you square those two principles? Expressing your opinion is OK as long as it doesn't hurt anybody? Who decides what is hurtful? Or expressing an opinion is OK as long as it's not an opinion about another person? It doesn't work. This law is designed to prosecute people like Brigitte Bardot, and that's exactly what's wrong with it. It has "selective prosecution" written all over it. A hasty law designed to combat a certain social ill, but which lends itself to abuse and patently contradicts foundational principles of national law--well, that is to me a perfect example of a bad law. quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol In the end, nobody's explained why that particular law is bad. Seems to me they argue purely on the principle that the law in question can be abused, but they forget that there are specific provisions that make it impossible for that to happen.

kittinSol -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/23/2008 12:53:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pollux You only like this law because it agrees with your sensibilities Complete crap for two reasons: first of all, I do not like this law. I don't particularly like laws, if you must know. But I understand the reasons that made it to be drafted in the first place. Secondly, you are assuming something about me which is false, which is that I have a bias because the law was applied in a direction that suits my personal sensibility. False too.

kittinSol -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/23/2008 12:57:17 PM)
Lam, give me one example of a perfect law, and I'll throw myself at your feet... imperfect legislations suit imperfect human societies. You're arguing from the point of view of someome cradled in the First Amendment - and you are also forgetting that European law supercedes individual countries' legislation. All in all, I do not believe in free speech at the expense of everything else... We'll have to agree to disagree.

FullCircle -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/23/2008 1:27:59 PM)
We've already established freedom of speech isn't guaranteed in the US even with all the provisions. I think in Europe we are just a little bit more realistic about what is legitimate speech. You can't let everyone voice an opinion just for the sake of a principle. That's what you do in the US and it means people there have to listen to abuse against them all the time. Why should anyone have to turn on the TV and hear someone abuse their way of life and then wonder why their government does nothing about it? What right is more important to you? Being able to voice an outrageous opinion or not having to hear someone constantly attack you and erode your community’s faith in who you are? People have a right to exist without constantly being verbally attacked by others. I think that is more important.

FullCircle -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/23/2008 2:26:34 PM)
I know I know "what is outrageous speech?" If it involves a [sm=pigsfly.gif] & a [sm=excuseme.gif]it's outrageous.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/23/2008 3:00:46 PM)
The right to voice an outrageous opinion is much more important to me than the right not to be offended. I'm very dubious of a right not to be offended; it can easily be deployed, for example, by people who want to hound those offensive BDSM lifestylers into oblivion... So far most Europeans seem to accept these kinds of laws because they're being used to protect minorities. But the same law that Brigitte Bardot keeps violating, with the same language, could easily be used to protect majorities or powerful interests, and that's where this can start to get chilling. It's just a bad law. Why not spend more time thinking about the difference between freedom of expression and irresponsible defamation? There is a line to be drawn, and this law declines to draw it rationally. Anyway, no one on either side believes that free speech trumps ALL other concerns, so people, stop it with that canard. There are plenty of defensible limitations on free speech. quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle What right is more important to you? Being able to voice an outrageous opinion or not having to hear someone constantly attack you and erode your community’s faith in who you are?

pollux -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/23/2008 4:53:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle You can't let everyone voice an opinion just for the sake of a principle. Wow.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/23/2008 6:07:03 PM)
Not ironic at all if you study and realize that the founders distrusted all government, and more so the governments of Europe. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol The distrust of the State is a very American thing: it has shaped the posters' reaction on this thread, for sure. The European posters are much more mitigated in their opinion over this issue... give or take an exception or two. Which is a little ironic for a country that flies so many national flags and has its children swear an oath of alligence every day.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/23/2008 6:12:25 PM)
Here is one reason: If racist have to keep their mouths shut, then how do we truly identify them? Speech is freedom of expression and thought. I would much rather have someone be allowed to spew this shit, so it is easier for me to decide I do not want anything to do with them. Here is a second reason: precedent of speech restriction is used when something new is added to the list of what cannot be spoken about, the slippery slope if that the government determines this and as an American I distrust all governments with that power. The third reason is the curtailing of thought exchange, at some point even a logically debate will offend someone and they may wish to apply this law to the restriction of a valid discussion. Who determines what is valid? The government would, and again the less power a government has against the citizens, the more fear that government will have of the citizens. The government fear of the citizen, is the only thing that keeps governments in check. quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol In the end, nobody's explained why that particular law is bad. Seems to me they argue purely on the principle that the law in question can be abused, but they forget that there are specific provisions that make it impossible for that to happen.

pollux -> RE: Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slurs (4/23/2008 6:19:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: pollux You only like this law because it agrees with your sensibilities Complete crap for two reasons: first of all, I do not like this law. I don't particularly like laws, if you must know. But I understand the reasons that made it to be drafted in the first place. Secondly, you are assuming something about me which is false, which is that I have a bias because the law was applied in a direction that suits my personal sensibility. False too. I'm not sure I agree it was complete crap. quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Bardot is a stupid, hateful old bitch; it's like the sixth time she's broken the law that protects people from racial hatred. It's a fucking law, get over it. She's got it coming, and she deserves it. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1799668 quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol EXACTLY, MissM. Bardot is a bitter and twisted hag, and as many exclusive animal lovers, she's a misanthropist - a particular brand of misanthropy, however, one that is exclusively aimed at those from a different culture than her own (Parisian petite bourgeoisie). http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1799671 quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol I'm going to say something horrible now, but I don't care . Bardot prefers animals to human beings because they don't tell her how ugly she's become. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1799698 quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol As for Bardot... finishing in the stomach of an angry but beautiful tiger would be redeeming for her sins, in my book :-) . At least, she'd be useful for something. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1799802 I don't suppose your speech in these examples could be construed as incitement to hatred, could it?

Page: << < prev 9 10 11 12 [13]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

1.078125