4 ms·

> 1. Applies to most european countries as well. No. http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/western-europe-vs-religious-freedom-7869 http://nationalinterest.o

by maratd 14y ago

> 1. Applies to most european countries as well. No. http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/western-europe-vs-religious-freedom-7869 http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/western-europe-vs-rel... > 2. And what EU member country doesn't have this? Germany, Austria, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Persona_non_grata http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Persona_non_grata Mind you, the man is absolute human garbage, but the entire point of protecting speech is protecting the most despicable kind. It's fairly easy to tolerate the pleasant variety. > 3. The US has only been invaded by ... My point still stands. Even if the US throws this one under the bus in the future, my point still stands. It's not about a perfect record, but a good one. The US has a good record on this. > 4. ... Hell, NYC doesn't even try to gus it up. They call it "stop and frisk". I live in the NYC area, so I know about this a bit. In each case, the person consents to the search. Yes, it's pretty scary when a cop walks over to you and tells you to empty your pockets. You need to have balls to say "No" and "I do not consent to any searches". But then again, any right given to you is pointless if you don't have the balls to exercise it. > 5. You have the right to vote. Not all states have to make it easy or convenient to do so. You don't have a right to a convenient process, merely a process. It's a wonderful thing to reach a point where people have the wherewithal to bitch about how convenient voting is, rather than if their vote is actually counted. Mind you, I'm of the same mind as you, I think we should be able to vote on the Internet. Lately, my home state of New Jersey has made an effort to permit this (albeit, in response to a natural disaster).

tripzilch 14y ago
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Persona_non_grata http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Persona_non_grata Yeap. Moving the goalposts. You said "The right to speak freely against the government". If you said "free speech" in general, yes, you'd be right. But you said "speaking out against the government". Right now, you've only shown that the US is somehow better because you're allowed to freely deny the Holocaust. Let's put your "god hates fags" guy in the same category. Such a free country! See, my point is not that these anti-holocaust-denying laws are silly, they are and I wish they'd go away. The point is, how does your "free speech" protect you when you've actually got something to say. So far you've demonstrated American citizens have the right to inane and offensive yelling, that doesn't actually speak out in any effective way against the government. Let's see some real examples, where someone exercised their right to free speech of something that actually made the government actually really uncomfortable that actually really led to change, as well as a similar example where this was not possible in a EU country because its people didn't have the right. And there's been enough examples, also in the US, of people gagged (with legal rulings) because of what they would have to say would make the government uncomfortable. In practice, your right is the Freedom to Scream Dumb Shit. Don't delude yourself it's actually anything more than that. Maybe "Freedom to play court jester" sounds a bit more forgiving. I'm not saying the EU-"no holocaust denying"-countries are any better, but it's not "free speech" if it only protects raging lunatics.
- maratd 14y ago
  What goal posts? I was summarizing the constitution. If my summary is too vague for you, here is the actual text: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Then you spend the entire post ranting about what can really be summarized as: > In practice, your right is the Freedom to Scream Dumb Shit. Ok. Are you the arbiter of what is and is not "dumb shit"? Because as long as there is somebody deciding what is and is not dumb, then you don't have the capacity to speak your mind. You merely have the capacity to speak what everybody else is already thinking. And the point wasn't that much of Europe is some sort of third-world cesspool. It isn't. The point was that the US Constitution provides protections which are not clearly codified in the EU, beside the right to carry arms. Even though the EU is a modern invention, while the US Constitution is the oldest constitution still in use.

by maratd 14y ago

tripzilch 14y ago

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Persona_non_grata http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Persona_non_grata Yeap. Moving the goalposts. You said "The right to speak freely against the government". If you said "free speech" in general, yes, you'd be right. But you said "speaking out against the government". Right now, you've only shown that the US is somehow better because you're allowed to freely deny the Holocaust. Let's put your "god hates fags" guy in the same category. Such a free country! See, my point is not that these anti-holocaust-denying laws are silly, they are and I wish they'd go away. The point is, how does your "free speech" protect you when you've actually got something to say. So far you've demonstrated American citizens have the right to inane and offensive yelling, that doesn't actually speak out in any effective way against the government. Let's see some real examples, where someone exercised their right to free speech of something that actually made the government actually really uncomfortable that actually really led to change, as well as a similar example where this was not possible in a EU country because its people didn't have the right. And there's been enough examples, also in the US, of people gagged (with legal rulings) because of what they would have to say would make the government uncomfortable. In practice, your right is the Freedom to Scream Dumb Shit. Don't delude yourself it's actually anything more than that. Maybe "Freedom to play court jester" sounds a bit more forgiving. I'm not saying the EU-"no holocaust denying"-countries are any better, but it's not "free speech" if it only protects raging lunatics.

maratd 14y ago
What goal posts? I was summarizing the constitution. If my summary is too vague for you, here is the actual text: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Then you spend the entire post ranting about what can really be summarized as: > In practice, your right is the Freedom to Scream Dumb Shit. Ok. Are you the arbiter of what is and is not "dumb shit"? Because as long as there is somebody deciding what is and is not dumb, then you don't have the capacity to speak your mind. You merely have the capacity to speak what everybody else is already thinking. And the point wasn't that much of Europe is some sort of third-world cesspool. It isn't. The point was that the US Constitution provides protections which are not clearly codified in the EU, beside the right to carry arms. Even though the EU is a modern invention, while the US Constitution is the oldest constitution still in use.