Yup, I basically agree. He's not saying America should be like North Korea, but like Britain, where we have laws about inciting hate and violence. Which is why we banned the WBC from coming over here. Not really fascist, more common sense. (or Political Correctness gawn mad! Depends on your view)Robert Ewing said:I wasn't saying that you'd completely police free speech. I'm saying you need to police the extremists that cause real danger to the people around them. Physically and mentally, as the pen is mightier than the sword, words can influence both terrible and great things in people, I just want to help minimize the terrible part. If you want to call me a fascist for wanting all organizations based around hatred, violence, lies, gone... Then yeah I'm a fascist.unoleian said:I appreciate and respect your ability to speak your mind, but get out of my country, Fascist. (Assuming, of course, you're in my country. Ahem.)Robert Ewing said:Lastly, free speech. I've often said that free speech is overrated, and often the world views America's views as very one-sided and jaded at times. Take the Westboro baptist church, KKK, Brooklyn street gangs, LA street gangs, Neo-nazi's, church of scientology-- All born from the 'gift of free speech.' I think you'll all agree that America has constitutionally shot themselves in the foot. Which they can't help now of course, it's forever embedded into the American constitution. But if I had to chose, I'd of set down some regulations on the whole free speech things. To maximize the amount of free speech for just reasons, and minimize the amount of hate and stupidity.
Sure, regulating what people can and cannot say seems like a great idea when it's things we don't agree with, but what happens when something close and important to you comes under scrutiny? What would you say, then?
Information and ideas should always be open for free exchange, no matter what we personally think of them, or even if they actually are of dubious morality. It's better that free and open discourse of ideas be able to be discussed and promoted publicly, no matter what they are-- keep it as the enemy you know. Ban the exchange of certain beliefs and ideas, and you only push it further underground, where it's potentially under even less scrutiny.
Our ability to have free and open discourse is one of the few true hallmarks we have left. Take that away, and we're only a few steps away from the likes of North Korea, Syria, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, and others who seek to control their populaces thoughts and beliefs. And that....should scare the shit out of anyone.
ed-- We already teeter on the brink of collapsing into a fundamentalist ideology if the Religious Right movement gains much more steam. Regulating thoughts and ideas is just one more way to push us closer to that edge.
Here's a question about freedom of speech: Should we restrict it? Before you answer consider this:
Unrestricted Freedom of Speech says I can stand in Hyde Park during a BNP rally or whatever and rile them into a riot against foreigners and then (presuming I didn't take part in the actual riot other than causing it) not get charged for anything.
Unrestricted Freedom of Speech says that I can go into an airport, point at a person holding a briefcase and shout, "He's got a bomb!" without getting in trouble. it also says I can go into a skyscraper and shout "Fire!"
Here's the real interesting thing that people don't think about that much: Unrestricted Freedom of Speech says that I can say whatever I like about anyone, no libel laws. Gandhi? Killed and raped people, hey why you angry? I can say what I want. And remember, it's not just me who can say stuff like that, it's everyone, including news corporations. News corporations can now also publish any stories, no matter if it's false or if the person the story concerns doesn't want the story published.