Brigitte Bardot Fined for Inciting Racial Hatred
I must admit, I was a bit surprised by this when I read it. I had no idea she felt the way she did about certain ethnic groups.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=5393950&src=US_DskTopTkr/GetContent§ion=news
PARIS (Reuters) - French actress-turned-animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot was convicted Thursday of inciting racial hatred and ordered to pay $6,000 -- the fourth such fine for the former sex symbol since 1997.
The Paris court sentenced Bardot, 69, for remarks in her book "A Scream in the Silence," an outspoken attack on gays, immigrants and the jobless that shocked France last year.
In the book, she laments the "Islamization of France" and the "underground and dangerous infiltration of Islam."
"Mme. Bardot presents Muslims as barbaric and cruel invaders, responsible for terrorist acts and eager to dominate the French to the extent of wanting to exterminate them," the court said.
France's 5-million-member Muslim community is the largest in Europe.
Bardot, who was not present for the verdict, denied the charges in a tearful court appearance last month, saying her book did not target Islam or people from North Africa.
She told the court France was going through a period of decadence and said she opposed interracial marriage.
"I was born in 1934, at that time interracial marriage wasn't approved of," she said.
"There are many new languages in the new Europe. Mediocrity is taking over from beauty and splendor. There are many people who are filthy, badly dressed and badly shaven."
In her book, she also attacks homosexuals as "fairground freaks," condemns the presence of women in government and denounces the "scandal of unemployment benefits."
Bardot's attacks on Muslims prompted anti-racism groups to launch legal proceedings against the former star, who turned her back on film after 46 films to concentrate on animal welfare.
Bardot, who in her 1960s heyday was the epitome of French feminine beauty, was fined $3,250 in January 1998 after being convicted of inciting racial hatred in comments about civilian massacres in Algeria.
Four months earlier, a court fined her for saying France was being overrun by sheep-slaughtering Muslims.
© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.
She was fined for something she said, something she wrote?
Good to know that France still cherishes the right to free speech.
-sm
you are free to say anything you want as long as we agree.
i think she is senile and foolish for saying the things she does, but how can she be fined for it? wouldn't someone have to buy her book to be offended?
that's like buying playboy and trying to sue because their were offensive images inside.
France never cherished the right to free speech. They've got a government department dedicated to preventing the evolution of their language. If you're not supposed to publish certain words, certain thoughts can't be far behind.
seriously, after reading things like this i always come back to the same question. why are we concerned about what the french think of us?
They've been an ally since before our country was founded.
only becasue of a common enemy and their long range goals, honkey.
fuck the french......with no grease
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
They've been an ally since before our country was founded.
allies, like friends are not necessarily forever. when is the last time the french came to the aid of the US?
Actually you can't tell en idiot idiot in Europe... And it has nothing to do with right of free speech. If you offend somebody with what you are saying than this person can raise charges against you. And we over here in Europe have bad memories about yenophobe and inciting racial hatred, so there are limits. You can go on and ask what would happen if the "majority" is against democracy, what would you do? And to hijack the thread. What would happen if in US the "majority" would be against the constitution on constitutional rights?
Originally posted by lumberjim
fuck the french......with no grease
shit-stirrer
i'm sorry pi - i don't follow.
Amazing that someone possessed of such beauty can be capable of such ugliness.
The right to free speech in Europe tends not to include the right to incite racial hatred .....We had a teensy bit of a problem with that sort of thing a few years back, dont know if ye've heard boutthat? Fella by the name of Hitler got all stirred up about social darwinism and the German Volks' glorious destiny. You must know him, he had a particularly silly moustache and a tendency to gesticulate wildly....
For as long as there has been a Europe there have been pogroms within it. We dont need the right to incite racial or religious hatred. It's very difficult to get something censored in the UK but incitement to racial hatred or violence will get you a) censored and b) prosecuted.
Originally posted by lookout123
shit-stirrer
aren't we all, to one degree or another? i mean, where would we be without the stirrers of the world? standing in front of a pot of unstirred shit, that's where.
i'm probably going to get stoned for say this but, wtf -
i despise hitler and everything he supported, caused, ... but - i think hitler, or any idiot scumbag, should have the right to say (or write in a book) just about anything. i may want to drag them out back and kick the shit out of them, but getting sued (outside of libel, or is it slander) after writing ignorant inflamatory statements in a book is pretty ridiculous.
hitler would have been just another loser if the people hadn't followed him. genocide didn't happen because adolph opened his mouth. those atrocities were due to people following him of their own free will.
to say otherwise is just as ridiculous as Judas Priest being sued because a kid killed himself "cuz the music told him to"
...and now that there's a rule against it, racial hatred is completely gone from Europe.
An unidentified member of the Jewish community looks at Nazi signs painted on headstones at a Jewish cemetery in Herrlisheim, eastern France, April 30, 2004. About 100 headstones have been desecrated in the cemetery.thand god for racial harmony.
I think you are severely underestimating the power of propoganda and streetlevel agitation.
Originally posted by Pi
What would happen if in US the "majority" would be against the constitution on constitutional rights?
They often are. The Supreme Court usually smacks them down. Then they complain about "judicial activism".
Of course......having said all that we are happy to say all manner of expletives and assorted obscenities in our media and nobody really gets upset. That whole farce over Janet Jackson ( was it her?) boob on tv was just amazing. *that* couldnt happen here......but yes you want to write a best selling book about why Niggers arent to be trusted and are being employed by the Jewish bankers of the world in a mad bid for domination of the aryan race you better believe you will raise the hackles of the law.
i think you overestimating the power of stupid words in a book. it takes the idiots willing to follow for bad things to happen.
i can sit here in my office and plot the end of civilization and nothing will happen. wait a second.
i just told my wife that i think iowans are responsible for the problems in the US. they hoard all of the corn because they are part of a secret cult with a plan to destroy the rest of us.
her response - "you're a moron" and she walked away.
stupid ideas are just that - ideas until groups of people decide to get together and do something about them.
The strength of the freedom of expression comes from its inherent defense of unpopular, minority opinions.
The irony of using Hitler and other dictatorial racists as a defense for censoring certain speech is that their populism fomented exactly because they outlawed certain kinds of speech.
Are we so confident that chipping away at the right to speak racists thoughts can never be abused?
Is it not better to make speech an unmolested right? Particularly political speech. Particularly minority opinions. Particularly that speech that is most repugnant to us.
The abuses of censorship are far more vile than the abuses of expression.
-sm
stupid ideas are just that - ideas until groups of people decide to get together and do something about them.
In order for your stupid idea to be anything other than a local phenomenon, reserved only for your wife and closest friends, you would need to disseminate the idea more widely.
Originally posted by DanaC
In order for your stupid idea to be anything other than a local phenomenon, reserved only for your wife and closest friends, you would need to disseminate the idea more widely.
i just did, how many cellarites are currently spreading the word that we are going to get those damn iowans? show of hands?
all i am saying is that you punish and work to prevent harmful actions, not thoughts. the "thought police" idea will generally backfire. that is why the horrible band Marilyn Manson is so big - nobody knew about him until people told the kids they couldn't listen to the evil spew.
The irony of using Hitler and other dictatorial racists as a defense for censoring certain speech is that their populism fomented exactly because they outlawed certain kinds of speech
Hitler's populism was fomented by the political zeitgeist. With massive economic and social problems, a sense of defeat and unfair punishment ( versailles, the total warguilt clause) the shambolic Weimar government looked devoid of answers. A running war began to be fought by two sides. Communism and fascism. That war was fought at street level with fists and boots and raucous humour and posters and books and music and violent confrontation......In the end though, capital which held its decision in abeyance for as long as it could then decided and swung it's support behind the fascists as being the less devastating force than the communists
The war that was fought on the streets of Germany and in the barracks of bavaria was one of intimidation and the spreading of an idea, any idea in a very dark time for a defeated and demoralised people. Hitler offered them a golden. jewel encrusted dream of the true destiny of their nation but before he ever got to offer that to them on a national level he first had to win various smaller victories. In order to place himself in such a place as to take advantage of the political situation he first had to manouvre his way through various military and political organisations and he used the tactics one might expect him to have used.
you are absolutely correct in all of that. but stifling the ability to say what a group wants is more likely to draw more people to their cause. it is human nature.
the more freedom of speech is restricted, the more people will sit around and wonder what is being kept from them. they will seek out the outlawed ideas and some will grasp onto them as truth merely because the powers that be, (which can't be trusted) are trying to suppress these ideas.
Originally posted by lookout123
all i am saying is that you punish and work to prevent harmful actions, not thoughts. the "thought police" idea will generally backfire.
This had me thinking: Is it "fair" that hatespeech isn't punishable by law but taking action against that speech is? For instance, if someone called me the "N" word, and I felt compelled to bash that fucker right in his face, then *I* am the one who gets punished, while the other person is free to disrespect the next person with his hate speech.
Hm...
you would be welcome to 'hate speech' them right back. bashing someone in the face is illegal.
sticks and stones, folks. sticks and stones.
is it fair? absolutely not. and i sure as hell wouldn't be on a jury that convicted you of assault. but ignorant people do have the right to espouse ignorant ideas. the difficulty for me lies in where to draw the line of what is a hateful thought put into the public forum vs one that is directed at an individual.
1) "there are n's in the world and they are what is wrong in america"
ignorant, he should be tarred and feathered, but not sued.
2) "john you are a loathesome N and the reason for problems here"
that is specifically directed at someone and there is room for some sort of repercussion there. i am not a lawyer, so i don't know where libel or slander comes into play.
it is a hard one and i think we will debate it until we just screw until we are all the same color.
sticks and stones, folks. sticks and stones.
Generally in my experience the far right are happy to use both of those
Originally posted by DanaC
Generally in my experience the far right are happy to use both of those
in my experience the far left like to sit around crying while planning the next trial.
see it's easy to throw out ridiculous statements
dana, i was referring to the child's poem
sticks and stones
may break my bones
but names will never hurt me.
Lsyc seems to think she would be justified in physically harming someone for something they said. ( compelled even)
hateful words suck, but they're just words. lookout is right. say what you want, if noone listens, you're not going to hurt anyone.
words that directly cause mayhem or panic resulting in violence are one thing, but some actress making an ass out of herself in a book that you'd have to purchase to read? i think not.
There have been numerous incidents in the uk in recent years with BNP candidates for Council elections having with them a bunch of thugs who intimidate the opposition leafleters with violence. They seemed quite happy to put bricks through the window of my asian neighbour a few years ago as well.
I am aware of the rhyme LJ :P
What is at issue really, is how much damage does such a view cause when expressed in print? My opinion is that it can cause a great deal of damage. Does that person have the right to cause a great deal of damage?
if they put on a flyer and put it on every car and neighborhood door - i'm with you.
if it is put into a book that you would have to buy in order to read, then let them be ignorant.
Originally posted by DanaC
They seemed quite happy to put bricks through the window of my asian neighbour a few years ago as well.
boy - all we sling here is mud.
Every so often there is a rise in fascist activity in most European countries. We are on a bit of an upswing in the Uk at th moment, have been for a couple of years. They have a two pronged approach. The first prong is the traditional booted bovver boys kicking the shit out of any asian lad that strays into their turf and intimidating other political activists/campaigners out of the area. the second prong is the rather more public attempt to show a "respectable" face. This respectable face is the one they show on their electoral campaign video and on the News interviews.....It slips from time to time they cant seem to help themselves *chuckles* They had to kick out one rising young star for glassing someone at their conference :P
Wow. my whole world is just spinning right now.
Am I nuts, or are the cellarites on the right defending civil liberties and those on the left are arguing against them?
-sm
wait, which side am i on?
Originally posted by lumberjim
wait, which side am i on?
You're on team "Salty"
I'm on team "Go Jiff Go"
DanaC is on team "Miss Grab Hands"
good god man, can't you keep anything straight.
i don't know. that whole left wing, right wing thing always confused me. team salty sounds good. some days i play for "team asshole button", though, just to warn you.
Originally posted by lookout123
if they put on a flyer and put it on every car and neighborhood door - i'm with you.
if it is put into a book that you would have to buy in order to read, then let them be ignorant.
right again. says so right here in my answer book.
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
Wow. my whole world is just spinning right now.
Am I nuts, or are the cellarites on the right defending civil liberties and those on the left are arguing against them?
-sm
Isn't that the way things started out in this country?
Conservatives used to be the good guys?
Originally posted by lumberjim
Lsyc seems to think she would be justified in physically harming someone for something they said. ( compelled even)
First off, let's get it correct...the question was:
"Is it "fair" that hatespeech isn't punishable by law but taking action against that speech is?"
Where was the "justification" or the "compulsion"?
If it was about assumption or implication, then that's on YOU, not me. I didn't mean myself LITERALLY! Just making myself clear on that. (should have put "assuming and implying something" under the bitch-switch topic) :p
hateful words suck, but they're just words. lookout is right. say what you want, if noone listens, you're not going to hurt anyone.
The whole "sticks and stones" thing, to me (repeat:
TO ME) is a load of crap. Words
DO hurt, and I believe that everyone, and I mean
EVERYONE has a word/phrase that will turn on the "bitch button" no matter how many times you say that words don't hurt...even you Jim. It seems as though you got pretty upset at certain words when you and Sycamore were going toe to toe a while back..You may not get to the boiling point as quick as someone else, but there is that word floating out there...all someone has to do is to find out what it is and speak it. "If no one listens"? Kind of hard to do if that person is shouting the words right in front of your face or within earshot.
My thing is why do *I* have to "not allow" words to hurt ME? Why not get on the other person's case to not speak those types of words because they are rude, disresepctful, etc.? Has society forgotten the days of "if you have nothing good to say don't say it at all?" Obviously so, because
NOW it seems that people would rather get called all kinds of vicious names instead of teaching people the art of couth and "home training".
Oh well...*shrugs*
Thanks to lookout123 for actually answering the question I posed:
"is it fair? absolutely not. and i sure as hell wouldn't be on a jury that convicted you of assault. but ignorant people do have the right to espouse ignorant ideas. the difficulty for me lies in where to draw the line of what is a hateful thought put into the public forum vs one that is directed at an individual.
1) "there are n's in the world and they are what is wrong in america"
ignorant, he should be tarred and feathered, but not sued.
2) "john you are a loathesome N and the reason for problems here"
that is specifically directed at someone and there is room for some sort of repercussion there. i am not a lawyer, so i don't know where libel or slander comes into play.
it is a hard one and i think we will debate it until we just screw until we are all the same color."
Intesting answer. However, I saw both examples of contributing to a possible negative situation (whether that be more verbal mudslinging or actual physical violence...which I am
NOT condoning, but I won't lie...sometimes I think that beating the crap out of someone who has blatently disrepected me would be in short order, and think "boy if it weren't illegal..."). I mean come on: You don't think that at all those weak ass Klan rallies, that the counterprotesters aren't itching to beat the living fuck out of those clowns? Sure, but they don't, but yet they (the Klan) are allowed to continue their hatespeech, and no one says one blasted word about it (because of the First Amendment).
Maybe not punishable in the form of a lawsuit, but damnit, somebody do/say
SOMETHING! :mad:
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
Am I nuts, or are the cellarites on the right defending civil liberties and those on the left are arguing against them?
Eh, not quite. I firmly believe in protecting free speech, even hateful speech.
Regarding the original post, I'm not sure what's more fucked up...Bardot's words or that she was punished for saying them.
Originally posted by ladysycamore
First off, let's get it correct...the question was:
"Is it "fair" that hatespeech isn't punishable by law but taking action against that speech is?"
Where was the "justification" or the "compulsion"?
Originally posted by ladysycamore
This had me thinking: Is it "fair" that hatespeech isn't punishable by law but taking action against that speech is? For instance, if someone called me the "N" word, and I felt [color=red]compelled [/color]to bash that fucker right in his face, then *I* am the one who gets punished, while the other person is free to disrespect the next person with his hate speech.
Hm...
to answer your question in more simple terms, YES. it IS fair.
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Isn't that the way things started out in this country?
Conservatives used to be the good guys?
Depends on your perspective. Roundabout 1776, the conservatives would have been pro-England, as opposed to the radical secessionists.
And what about the islamists preaching in the country against whites and for terror?
Ok lady syc , i agree with you mostly , BUT why is it ok for a black person to call another black person the "N" word but let a white person say the same word and they are racist ???? Where is the fucking equality there ???? And YES it buges the fuck out of me to be called cracker by a black person for this same reason .
A few years back i was working in a plant that had a black superviser , he called all the black people by name , all the white people he called bubba . I said " ok rastis " , he got verry Irate . I told him my name is CHRIS NOT BUBBA !!!! We had to be seperated so we didn't kill each other .
Not trying to rile you up , just curious .
Coming in rather late here, but what the heck? I understand Dana's stance in light of modern European history. While this country took part in WWII, our people and our country were not nearly as ravaged by the results of Hitler's Hate Machine as the Europeans were.
Hitler's was a clever evil, coming at precisely the right time and place, and worded so as to find support from the German people. You can hardly compare his words with a random insult about the people of Iowa that finds no resonance with those who read it.
Try this insult instead: The US is going to hell thanks to all those lazy N- 's and Mexicans who sit around all day on welfare and bleed the honest, hard-working taxpayer dry.
Now that I have your attention...
I am actually on the side of free speech and if that means free insults then so be it. It's just that I can understand why Dana and many other Europeans might feel as they do.
When my right to free speech means the right to incite hatred, one starts to walk a fine line. The trouble is who gets to define what "inciting hatred" consists of? Sure ethnic slurs would fall into that category, but what about someone who says "You white republicans" or "you black democrats"? One could easily make a case for outlawing statements like those as well if you are going to outlaw ethnic slurs or words which inspire hatred between the races. There we go down that slippery slope which ends with those in power censoring the words of those who are not.
As unpaletable as it may be, I'll accept your right to make racist statements, publish pornography (although I draw the line at kid and snuff porn, sorry), and make the "Anarchist's Cookbook" available in every public library because freedom of speech is one of the most valuable freedoms a person or a people can have. When the censors take over, the people have lost.
Originally posted by lookout123
when is the last time the french came to the aid of the US?
Wasn't it a little thing called the revolutionary war?
My history is a bit weak in the 1800s ... but didn't they blockade Southern ports in the Civil War?
Originally posted by marichiko
Try this insult instead: The US is going to hell thanks to all those lazy N- 's and Mexicans who sit around all day on welfare and bleed the honest, hard-working taxpayer dry.
You forgot the stupid white trash who are equally culpable.
Originally posted by wolf
You forgot the stupid white trash who are equally culpable.
Sure, that's a good ethnic insult, too.;)
*sighs* I don't get some attitudes here, nor the shallowness of opinion. How the fuck are some of you people thick enough to extrapolate this represents general french opinion is beyond me.
The racial situation in France at the moment is an interesting one for sure and it's mostly the result of poor planning by the french government, whether the situation can repaired now is hard to tell. There's been a very stories posted here on the happenings on the outskirts of Paris, it's a disaster waiting to happen.
I also find the irony of americans claiming to have free speach pretty funny as well.
The last time the french came to the aid of the US was about 4 days ago in allowing the UN resoluion to be passed, which frankly, in their position I wouldn't have done without more concessions.
Similar laws were passed in Victoria, my state in Australia a couple of years back, while I don't entirely agree with them they've only been used about 4 times in extreme cases and have probably contributed to the greater good. They certainly haven't had a limiting effect on public discussion.
Originally posted by jaguar
I also find the irony of americans claiming to have free speach pretty funny as well.
Go ahead, knock me out. Who's the last guy to sit in an American prison for making a racial slur? How about for criticizing the ruling powers? For protesting against the war? For advocating an unpopular, radical overhaul of the culture or the law?
Several months ago, I ended up in the middle of downtown LA, near a protest against the war in Iraq. There were people standing on a platform, speaking into a microphone to a crowd of thousands, and saying the most vile and hateful things against the leader of our country. Standing around the perimeter were hundreds of police officers - they were facing outward. They were protecting the protestors from the angry counter-protestors gathered to shout them down.
You want to know the condition of our freedom here in America? We pay officers of the state to protect and defend those who criticize the state.
-sm
Originally posted by jaguar
*sighs* I don't get some attitudes here, nor the shallowness of opinion.
That's pretty rich coming from a knee-jerk anti-American.
IMO, Bardot wasn't fined because her remarks offended Muslims. She was fined because by being against Islam, she appeared to on the side of the US.
If people in other places are content with making laws to protect everyone from hate speech and allowing their governments to enforce them, that's fine. I personally don't trust our government any further than I can throw them, and feel that enough of my civil liberties have been violated in the last few years. Plus, there's too much grey area when it comes to what is hate speech and what is not.
In order to truly call oneself a 1st Amendment supporter, I believe that one must particularly support the speech that they don't like.
Go ahead, knock me out. Who's the last guy to sit in an American prison for making a racial slur? How about for criticizing the ruling powers? For protesting against the war? For advocating an unpopular, radical overhaul of the culture or the law?
Point out the last one in Europe too, particularly your last point, we have bigger problems with far right groups across the EU than in the US and they're given a fairly free ride.
On the flipside, I dare you to openly advocate that Bin Laden is right, Bush should die and america destroyed and wait and when they finish putting you in 'stress positions' along with a few other US citizens in the US prison camp in Cuba, outside the protection of your legal system so you can be held for as long as they see fit without trial, we'll discuss this again.
Failing that, try not to come a cropper of libel or slader laws, they can be a mite tricky at times.
Oh an russotto, try reading sometime.
Bardot's attacks on Muslims prompted anti-racism groups to launch legal proceedings
See I bolded it to make it nice and easy for you.
Syc, I think you forgot that voltaire quote that has to go with that post ;)
BIN LADEN WAS RIGHT!
[SIZE=3]BUSH SHOULD DIE![/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]AMERIKA SHOULD BE DESTROYED![/SIZE]
I'll let you know if I'm still around at the end of the day.;)
Originally posted by russotto
IMO, Bardot wasn't fined because her remarks offended Muslims. She was fined because by being against Islam, she appeared to on the side of the US.
hadn't thought about it from that angle. i don't know if i'm ready to buy into it, but anything is possible.
On the flipside, I dare you to openly advocate that Bin Laden is right, Bush should die and america destroyed and wait and when they finish putting you in 'stress positions' along with a few other US citizens in the US prison camp in Cuba, outside the protection of your legal system so you can be held for as long as they see fit without trial, we'll discuss this again.
mm, great comparison. uh, no WTF are you smoking?
1) you do have the legal right to say that in america. you'll probably get the shit kicked out of you, but please, be my guest. stating that opinion is fine. to come out and say "i would like to kill bush" - now that may land you in an interview room.
2) last time i checked they aren't just picking americans off the street and throwing them in gitmo for voicing an opinion.
Originally posted by lumberjim
to answer your question in more simple terms, YES. it IS fair.
My clarification was that I was asking the question as an example, not saying that *I* would actually do something like that, which is how your response sounded.
Just letting you know, the gubbermint is quite responsive to threats, even the seemingly noncredible ones.
The secret service guy has lately been joking with our secretary about the fact that any conversations she has with him have to occur from behind a plant of some kind ... yes, he's visiting that often.
Originally posted by wolf
Just letting you know, the gubbermint is quite responsive to threats, even the seemingly noncredible ones.
i know, i had an aquaintance who got an interview after some stupid comments in a bar.
what i was pointing out is the difference between saying "bush should die" and "i want to kill bush" one is just a statement of opinion, the other can possibly land you in hot water because it is a statement of intent. both may get an interview - but one will gain much more attention from the powers that be.
Originally posted by zippyt
Ok lady syc , i agree with you mostly , BUT why is it ok for a black person to call another black person the "N" word but let a white person say the same word and they are racist ???? Where is the fucking equality there ????
Zippy: the best explaination that I can give is that sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it. I'm sure that you have heard blacks say to each other, "Yo man, dat's my nigga!" It's said in a way that isn't offending the other person, and it's
understood by the other person as such.
Now, if a white person says, "You damn dirty nigger!"...well, how is that going to be received? The same way that you received the word "cracker".
And YES it buges the fuck out of me to be called cracker by a black person for this same reason .
As well it should.
A few years back i was working in a plant that had a black superviser , he called all the black people by name , all the white people he called bubba . I said " ok rastis " , he got verry Irate . I told him my name is CHRIS NOT BUBBA !!!! We had to be seperated so we didn't kill each other .
Not trying to rile you up , just curious .
No problem, although I had made a promise to myself that I would stop trying to explain black behavior to whites, because it was getting to the point where I was banging my head against the wall with some of them. However, you asked nicely, and wanted to know. Thanks. :)
Originally posted by marichiko
When my right to free speech means the right to incite hatred, one starts to walk a fine line. The trouble is who gets to define what "inciting hatred" consists of? Sure ethnic slurs would fall into that category, but what about someone who says "You white republicans" or "you black democrats"? One could easily make a case for outlawing statements like those as well if you are going to outlaw ethnic slurs or words which inspire hatred between the races. There we go down that slippery slope which ends with those in power censoring the words of those who are not.
However, in saying "you white Republicans" to a group of white Repubs isn't "hate" it's just stating a fact. Now, maybe if it was "you goddamned cracka Republicans"...
that sounds hateful, and could possibly incite violence, etc.
As unpaletable as it may be, I'll accept your right to make racist statements, publish pornography (although I draw the line at kid and snuff porn, sorry), and make the "Anarchist's Cookbook" available in every public library because freedom of speech is one of the most valuable freedoms a person or a people can have. When the censors take over, the people have lost.
Gone...and forgotten:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
"Choose your words wisely."
"If you have nothing good to say...."
*sighs* :(
Originally posted by lookout123
i know, i had an aquaintance who got an interview after some stupid comments in a bar.
what i was pointing out is the difference between saying "bush should die" and "i want to kill bush" one is just a statement of opinion, the other can possibly land you in hot water because it is a statement of intent. both may get an interview - but one will gain much more attention from the powers that be.
Well, I'm still waiting for my interview (see my post above), but then I am kind of hard to find since I have 3 official addresses non of which is correct and my actual address in unfindable (I have to give friends detailed maps on how to get to my place). That's the nice thing about living in the mountains.
Its okay for members within any given group to insult one another, but very bad form for outsiders to do so. Its kind of like complaining about your family. I can say I hate my Mom, for example, but if someone else says my Mom is a bitch, I'll spring to her defense at once.
Perhaps Zippyt if Lady Syc's great grandfather had had the right to own y our greatgrandfather.....Perhaps if most white faces around you belonged to the direct descendants of slaves brought to a far land by powerful and wealthy Black men ....If the worlds wealth was still primarily concentrated into the hands of a small number of black families.....If the vote was something denied to your grandparents by Lady Syc's grandparents.....If there were still states in the Union where the pallor of your skin would keep you from being employed in any job above the menial and if in the forward looking progressive states merely be a minor obstacle ......If the world was ruled by a black elite who decades earlier stilll held power in the heart of Europe with the much larger white population virtual slaves....
Perhaps if Zippyt had spent his childhood watching TV rank with racism against his kind when the only white faces he saw growing up belonged to criminals or clowns...
If he was still more likely to get stopped by police, more likely to die before 30 and less likely to get a fair hearing should he be accused.
If all that were the case, maybe "cracker" would carry the same sting as "nigger"
But all that isnt the case. What we have now is the legacy left us by earlier generations. The wounds they inflicted have only just begun to scar over and even now the disparity of power between black and white is extreme.
But what if Bardot's assessment were
correct?
(just not politically correct)
Originally posted by DanaC
Perhaps Zippyt if Lady Syc's great grandfather had had the right to own y our greatgrandfather.....Perhaps if most white faces around you belonged to the direct descendants of slaves brought to a far land by powerful and wealthy Black men ....If the worlds wealth was still primarily concentrated into the hands of a small number of black families.....If the vote was something denied to your grandparents by Lady Syc's grandparents.....If there were still states in the Union where the pallor of your skin would keep you from being employed in any job above the menial and if in the forward looking progressive states merely be a minor obstacle ......If the world was ruled by a black elite who decades earlier stilll held power in the heart of Europe with the much larger white population virtual slaves....
Perhaps if Zippyt had spent his childhood watching TV rank with racism against his kind when the only white faces he saw growing up belonged to criminals or clowns...
If he was still more likely to get stopped by police, more likely to die before 30 and less likely to get a fair hearing should he be accused.
If all that were the case, maybe "cracker" would carry the same sting as "nigger"
But all that isnt the case. What we have now is the legacy left us by earlier generations. The wounds they inflicted have only just begun to scar over and even now the disparity of power between black and white is extreme.
*jaw drop*
Well stated! Couldn't snip a word! :)
Originally posted by ladysycamore
My clarification was that I was asking the question as an example, not saying that *I* would actually do something like that, which is how your response sounded.
well, thanks for clarifiying your clarification, then. I misunderstood.....twice......at ease, soldier.
My point, made with hyperbole is there is not free speach in the US, or for that matter, anywhere else. There are things you can say anywhere which will land you in hot water and when you piss off the powers that be, the only thing your constitution for is toilet paper. If you think otherwise you are nieave in the extreme.
hadn't thought about it from that angle. i don't know if i'm ready to buy into it, but anything is possible.
Read the fucking article, it says quite clearly she was fined because her comments were offensive to muslims.
Wolf, that's not a shocking article but it's not wonderful either, in the end radicalism, which is be neo-nazi groups in Russia or fundie islamics in the ghettos of paris is caused by one thing - poverty and powerlessness, remove that, problem goes away, it's not that fucking hard people.
Oh and for the wankers who have harped on since fucking 9/11 about how islam and democartic governments can't exist, do some reasearch (yes, much harder than just wanking out another column off the top of your head I know) in hizbollah, that friendly bunch and their role in the democratic government in Lebanon.
Christ I'm in a shite mood today.
Originally posted by ladysycamore
Gone...and forgotten:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
"Choose your words wisely."
"If you have nothing good to say...."
*sighs* :(
Not sure of exactly what you're trying to get at here, Lady Syc. I am not advocating the use of racially hateful language or ethnic slurs. I think such words are an outrage to all that is human and humane in our society. A white man who shouts the "N" word out the car window to a black man he passes on the street is a Neanderthal and every such incident pulls our country down and makes me feel ashamed for the horrific history between black and white that is still being played out in the United States. I think that such comments are an outright abuse of our right to free speech. But should they be forbidden? As a concerned human being who is fully aware of the terrible harm that the war of white against black has done and continues to do in our country, I would answer "yes."
But as a citizen highly skeptical of the actual good will of the government towards the people it governs and as someone with a real fear of handing the governmet more power than it already has, I have to reluctantly grant that racist the right to speak as he pleases. I also have to say that if the black guy and one or two of his friends caught the guy who made the remark and gave him a few broken teeth, I'd cheerfully look the other way.
Read the fucking article, it says quite clearly she was fined because her comments were offensive to muslims.
oh, and because it is in print then it must be the only explanation. calm the fuck down jag, your panties are just twisted a little too tight today. don't they have any valium, or better yet vicadin over there?
nobody said that WAS the reason for the fine, only that it may have played a role.
The article clearly states why legal action was launched, there is no obvious ambiguity nor evidence thereof.
The article clearly states why legal action was launched, there is no obvious ambiguity nor evidence thereof.
And Fox News "clearly states" a lot of things you don't believe.
I don't personally think France would prosecute someone just for appearing to support the U.S., but then again, I don't believe a lot of the sinister motives you ascribe to politicians over here either.
Wolf, that's not a shocking article but it's not wonderful either, in the end radicalism, which is be neo-nazi groups in Russia or fundie islamics in the ghettos of paris is caused by one thing - poverty and powerlessness, remove that, problem goes away, it's not that fucking hard people.
*Chuckles*well said Jaguar*passes a Camberwell Carrot* :joint:
Originally posted by DanaC
Wolf, that's not a shocking article but it's not wonderful either, in the end radicalism, which is be neo-nazi groups in Russia or fundie islamics in the ghettos of paris is caused by one thing - poverty and powerlessness, remove that, problem goes away, it's not that fucking hard people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Chuckles*well said Jaguar*passes a Camberwell Carrot* :joint:
In national as well as personal life, sometimes we need our friends to pull us up short for a reality check. People and nations can become so personally involved in an issue that they loose all objectivity. Thank-you both Dana and Jag for your astute observations. Neither one of you is that invested in the social system within the US, so you are able to see far more clearly what is going on.
Conservatives in this country have too much to lose by opening up their eyes or stopping to listen. For once uncover your ears and stop shouting "America the Beautiful" at the top of your lungs to drown out all other voices. You might learn something if you did. (OK, I know the conservative rottwilers of the board will now attack with all their teeth. I'm bracing myself...)
Bring back Anita Bryant. At least she openly promoted hate in English.
You people should see the filth that passes for campaign literature from the British National Party. A party founded by the remnants of the broken National Front and what thugs they are. They dont change they just buy suits.
The literature they put out, the leaflets and "newspapers" they push through the letterboxes of millions of homes in Britain are filled with thinly veiled racial slurs, and outright lies designed solely to whip up racial hatred. Even with our laws these get through. They have to be careful these days.......These days they cannot actually exhort people to "bash a paki" like they did in the 70's .....these days they have to be circumspect. They can still lie though. They can sell people a lie to hang their anger on and come polling day we get another fascist councillor.....or more accurately we get another 4.
Tonight in local elections in England the BNP made a gain of 4 council seats. Slowly they gather speed.....slowly they get their feet under the parliamentary table and it becomes ever harder to remove them. ...Do you think i am being over dramatic when I characterise these people as fascist? Certainly they share many of Hitlers views, express open admiration for his methods, deny the reality of his crimes and claim democracy to be false path which they would replace through revolution......until such time as that is possible they will work within the parliamentary system.....Of course they are never very far away from their pollitical roots...Their party leader has served time for violent assault and has publically endorsed the books of a fascist "historian" who claims the holocaust to be a lie.....A fitting leader for a party who have their roots on the football terraces during the hey day of "soccer hooliganism" ....You can see it, they cant hide it much as they try. For all teir tidy suits and careful smiles, when the camera is rolling for more than 5 minutes one of them says something or punches a protestor *chuckles* and you realise they really are just missing the brown shirts.
Theyre not isolated either....France's fascist politician Le Pen attended a meeting with the leader of the BNP ( Nick Griffen) a few weeks ago.....My didnt they just look the picture of respectable, electable suited gents of the noble game?.....Aye....right up until one of Griffen's "aides" lamped a protestor.
Originally posted by marichiko
Not sure of exactly what you're trying to get at here, Lady Syc.
That wasn't towards you. Just lamenting that the disrespect will continue and that people will have to continue to put up with it, that's all. I just plain give up.
Wolf, that's not a shocking article but it's not wonderful either, in the end radicalism, which is be neo-nazi groups in Russia or fundie islamics in the ghettos of paris is caused by one thing - poverty and powerlessness, remove that, problem goes away, it's not that fucking hard people.
OK, then why does the problem persist? Is it because it is that fucking hard?
Read the fucking article, it says quite clearly she was fined because her comments were offensive to muslims.
That doesn't mean that was their motivation, just their method and excuse.;)
Originally posted by ladysycamore
That wasn't towards you. Just lamenting that the disrespect will continue and that people will have to continue to put up with it, that's all. I just plain give up.
Ahhh, Lady Syc, don't give up. Things DO get a little better. My Mom was very racist (I'm ashamed to admit), but I didn't buy into it. My Dad (originally from the South) taught me to view people as human beings before anything else. So we CAN change things. Maybe only one person at a time, but it does begin to add up.
Try this insult instead: The US is going to hell thanks to all those lazy N- 's and Mexicans who sit around all day on welfare and bleed the honest, hard-working taxpayer dry.
If you make this statement, some may agree, others will just shake their head at your stupidity. How is that statement "inciting" anything, except possibly an ass whuppin' from someone that's offended?:confused:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
If you make this statement, some may agree, others will just shake their head at your stupidity. How is that statement "inciting" anything, except possibly an ass whuppin' from someone that's offended?:confused:
The point I was trying to make, Bruce, is just that some statements are more "loaded" than others. Its illogical to state that because no one responds to a "hate" statement about folks from Iowa, that, therefore, Hitler's statements were not incenduary. This seemed to be the general drift of the discussion at the time I posted that, and I wanted to give an example of how a statement can indeed be inflammatory. No, thank God, a person saying "The damn N's are responsible for all our problems" does not inflame the population as a whole into a rage, but, certainly, it has in the past (surely, I don't need to recount to you all the sad tales of lynchings, cross burnings, etc); and I pray to God it won't in the future.
Originally posted by jaguar
in the end radicalism, which is be neo-nazi groups in Russia or fundie islamics in the ghettos of paris is caused by one thing - poverty and powerlessness, remove that, problem goes away, it's not that fucking hard people.
I don't think it's that simple, jag.
First off, how do you fix the poverty issue? There are always going to be haves and have-nots, particularly in a capitalist system. Secondly, what kind of power are we talking about? And how much should they get?
Having said that, even if you remove those two items, you are still going to have some pissed off people who won't be satisfied. You can't please everybody.
Oh and for the wankers who have harped on since fucking 9/11 about how islam and democartic governments can't exist, do some reasearch (yes, much harder than just wanking out another column off the top of your head I know) in hizbollah, that friendly bunch and their role in the democratic government in Lebanon.
They have 8 or so seats in the Lebanese parliament, not to mention their social service activities. Now, if they'd just chill on the "death to Israel" shit...
To add to that...the government over there seems stable, but not THAT stable.
Originally posted by jaguar
Wolf, that's not a shocking article but it's not wonderful either, in the end radicalism, which is be neo-nazi groups in Russia or fundie islamics in the ghettos of paris is caused by one thing - poverty and powerlessness, remove that, problem goes away, it's not that fucking hard people.
Well, see, here we have a problem Because the gist that I'm getting from ya'll is that the most radical, hateful, destructive political philosophy in the world is the American neo-con.
And believe me, they are not poor. And they are not powerless.
-sm
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
Well, see, here we have a problem Because the gist that I'm getting from ya'll is that the most radical, hateful, destructive political philosophy in the world is the American neo-con.
And believe me, they are not poor. And they are not powerless.
-sm
Uhmm... SM, will you forgive me if I ask a REALLY stupid question? You see, I was kind of out of the loop for a while what with one thing and another, and I really don't understand this whole neo-con thing. Could you give me a brief summation of what they're about? Seriously, I'm really confused about them.:confused:
And Fox News "clearly states" a lot of things you don't believe.
I don't personally think France would prosecute someone just for appearing to support the U.S., but then again, I don't believe a lot of the sinister motives you ascribe to politicians over here either.
Ah but you're mistaking partisan soapbox for a reputable newssource (reuters). There is absolutely nothing in any shape of form to in any way back up russotto's paranoid and delusional (they're all out to get us) ravings.
OK, then why does the problem persist? Is it because it is that fucking hard?
Solving it? Sure, realizing that is the problem? No.
First off, how do you fix the poverty issue? There are always going to be haves and have-nots, particularly in a capitalist system. Secondly, what kind of power are we talking about? And how much should they get?
Having said that, even if you remove those two items, you are still going to have some pissed off people who won't be satisfied. You can't please everybody.
First of all, France fucked up, big-time. Dumping quite literally millions of immigrants into impoverished ghettos with little hope of escape and buggar all jobs was asking for trouble from the start. You can't please everybody and there are always fringes that are desperate to blow up something or something over something but most of them never get anywhere, why? They lack any real support. The thing every revolution and every successful terrorist group (look at FARC in colombia for example) have in common is a whole lot of almost always impoverished, powerless people and someone who offers an easy solution. The meme of Al Queda has offered that easy solution to marginalized, impoverished, powerless muslims the world over and people are shocked they're answering the call? Amazing the difference jobs, flat screen TVs and aircon could make.
The problem in much of the middle east is a combination of political and economic stagnation, often fueled by governments who would rather have people chanting death to america in the streets than death to them - they use it to deflect attention from their own failings.
I don't know how you solve all these problems but i know that killing bin laden and as many of his supporters as you feel like it going to do jack shit.
Lebanon is a classic example of too many cooks. Everyone seems to have a finger in Lebanon, the Iranians used it to get back at the US, the Syrians are continually fucking around, uncle Sam pushing pieces as well, it doesn't help the situation. If you look at the ethnic and religious makeup of the place not to mention the bloody civil war it's amazing who can now live together. If there is a model for these places to work to it's Lebanon, women in parliment,islamic parties supporting democracy, christians and musilms living side by side. I'd love to visit the place, fantastic nightlife.
Mari: All you need to know is
here , Rummy is a member.
"Mari: All you need to know is here , Rummy is a member."
Yuck to the nth degree! Really? Blech, sorry I asked. It seems like the more I know these days, the more I feel I have to apologize to the rest of the world for being American. It wasn't me, I swear! I demonstrated against them in the streets, I wrote endless arguments against them, I sure as hell didn't vote for them, but one day I woke up and there they were. I did my best and I failed. I'm sorry, you guys. (slinks off to spend the rest of her life in a cave, refusing to ever speak to another American again).
(slinks off to spend the rest of her life in a cave, refusing to ever speak to another American again).
You're just trying to get my hopes up, aren't you?:p
They have 8 or so seats in the Lebanese parliament, not to mention their social service activities. Now, if they'd just chill on the "death to Israel" shit...
Well perhaps if Israel would stop conducting reprisals against the civilian population of West Bank other Arab nations might not feel so angered by them
Originally posted by jaguar
Mari: All you need to know is here , Rummy is a member.
More than that. Check out the signatures on the various letters on
this page.
Some highlights:
Elliott Abrams (National Security Council, Reagan's Ast. Sec. State)
Richard L. Armitage (Deputy Secretary of State)
Gary Bauer ( Moralist, Former Pres. Candidate, held several posts under Reagan )
William J. Bennett ( Sec. Ed. and head of NEH under Reagan)
Jeb Bush (President's brother, Governer of Florida)
Dick Cheney ( Head of Bush's Vice Presidential selection committee, Bush's Vice President. )
Steve Forbes (Former Pres. Candidate )
Charles Krauthammer ( pundit )
William Kristol ( Chief of Staff to Dan Quayle and William J. Bennett)
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby ( Assistant to Bush, Chief of Staff to Cheney)
Richard Perle (Former Pentagon and Likud policy advisor, pundit)
Dan Quayle ( Elder Bush's veep. )
Donald Rumsfeld ( Bush's Sec. Defense )
Paul Wolfowitz ( Deputy Sec. Defense )
Originally posted by DanaC
Well perhaps if Israel would stop conducting reprisals against the civilian population of West Bank other Arab nations might not feel so angered by them
So...more tit-for-tat, eh? That's part of the reason why there is no peace.
Well, the Supreme Court back in the 1940's defined the concept of 'fighting words', words which were considered almost a physical assault. Of course the test case involved a person yelling at a police officer, who's obviously tender feelings were hurt.
Fighting words doctrine
As far as Ms. Bardot is concerned, she is now married to an executive of the French
National Front part, a sort of John Birch Society ultra-nationalist group. Ms. Bardot's story appears to be another sad story of an individual living a wild and libertine lifestyle who seems to have an epiphany, decides to straighten up, and proceeds to overcompensate to the point where he or she becomes a tiresome ultraconservative dogmatist denouncing free love, free thought, free expression, or any kind of liberalism.
Maybe she and GWB can form a club.
Here are two pictures of her
Then
and now
At least she hasn't appeared to have changed her eyeliner.
You find a look that works for you, you stay with it.
oh sweet jesus. if she looked that good then, and looks that bad now......i'm doomed.
i'd be bitter too. yuk!
Originally posted by jaguar
The thing every revolution and every successful terrorist group (look at FARC in colombia for example) have in common is a whole lot of almost always impoverished, powerless people and someone who offers an easy solution.
What have any of those groups really given their people though? Not much. Hizbollah comes close to doing something useful for their peeps, but they're still terrorists.
The meme of Al Queda has offered that easy solution to marginalized, impoverished, powerless muslims the world over and people are shocked they're answering the call? Amazing the difference jobs, flat screen TVs and aircon could make.
A job would be nice, sure. AC could help. Flat screen TVs? Put the Kool-Aid down. :)
But seriously...what has the Q really done for Muslims, other than making them an unfortunate target?
The problem in much of the middle east is a combination of political and economic stagnation, often fueled by governments who would rather have people chanting death to america in the streets than death to them - they use it to deflect attention from their own failings.
Agreed.
I don't know how you solve all these problems but i know that killing bin laden and as many of his supporters as you feel like it going to do jack shit.
I think the first thing that needs to happen is that Allah needs to be removed from the situation. The chances of that happening are about as likely as the US pulling every single soldier out of Iraq tomorrow morning, but Allah/God is the fuel for the flames.
If you look at the ethnic and religious makeup of the place not to mention the bloody civil war it's amazing who can now live together. If there is a model for these places to work to it's Lebanon, women in parliment,islamic parties supporting democracy, christians and musilms living side by side. I'd love to visit the place, fantastic nightlife.
The peace there seems rather uneasy though. As I understand it, Muslims make up 2/3 of the population, yet only get half the seats in parliament. But the government won't do a census b/c they fear another uprising.
They used to call Beirut the Paris of the Middle East, and from what I heard about it a few months ago, its comeback is nothing short of a miracle.
Syc, I'm not saying that acutally help people, Hitler certainly didn't do much for the Germans in the end but they offer the illusion of hope and it works.
I think the first thing that needs to happen is that Allah needs to be removed from the situation. The chances of that happening are about as likely as the US pulling every single soldier out of Iraq tomorrow morning, but Allah/God is the fuel for the flames.
Not really, that's my point. Remove the other factors and it's not such an issue. Of course if turkish soldiers 'regime changed' the vatican there might be some pissed catholics around - that's basically what's going on in Iraq right now.
As for Lebanon, the fact there is any peace after that war (literally carved the city up into blocks on religious grounds and sniped at each other for a decade) is pretty incredible, the fact there is a functioning democratic system is a miricle.
Originally posted by jaguar
Not really, that's my point. Remove the other factors and it's not such an issue.
I dig what you're saying, Jag. But in order to diffuse the situation as it stands right now, you do have to remove the God issue so that you can talk about those other factors.
As for Lebanon, the fact there is any peace after that war (literally carved the city up into blocks on religious grounds and sniped at each other for a decade) is pretty incredible, the fact there is a functioning democratic system is a miricle.
Agreed. But I suspect that it will only be a matter of time before the Muslims detest the status quo...and the Christians will fight as bitterly as they did the last go-round.
I have a little more hope for Lebanon but time will tell.
I dig what you're saying, Jag. But in order to diffuse the situation as it stands right now, you do have to remove the God issue so that you can talk about those other factors.
But how do you suggest that happens? The only way you can really deal with it is to ignore is as much as you can while you right the situation.
Originally posted by lumberjim
oh sweet jesus. if she looked that good then, and looks that bad now......i'm doomed.
i'd be bitter too. yuk!
We're all doomed, LJ. Its either die young and be a pretty corpse or grow older. Live with it as long as you can, big guy.
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Isn't that the way things started out in this country?
Conservatives used to be the good guys?
Originally, "republicans" were "liberal" and "democrats" were "conservative." Nowadays, it's reversed.
I got into this thread late, but for my two cents, I figure she should be able to say whatever she wants, in a book. I think LJ was the one who said that to be offended, one would actually have to buy and read the book. That's just it. Of course, that's France; I don't get those people anyway. I don't know how free speech works over there.
And as to her looks...hell, the woman's a hundred and sixty-seven years old ;) --I'd say she looks damn good for someone who hasn't tried to go plastic (or has she?)....
Sidhe
Originally posted by marichiko
Ahhh, Lady Syc, don't give up. Things DO get a little better. My Mom was very racist (I'm ashamed to admit), but I didn't buy into it. My Dad (originally from the South) taught me to view people as human beings before anything else. So we CAN change things. Maybe only one person at a time, but it does begin to add up.
The thing is, it won't happen during my lifetime, and I have too many other things that need my attention more. Ah well, people are going to say whatever the hell they want anyway, tact, couth, and home training be damned. :(