Confusion Over Policy on Married Gay Immigrants

[August]

Originally Posted by Fish

It's not.

Sure seems like it from this side of the pond:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12904395

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by August

Sure seems like it from this side of the pond:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12904395

Free speech is not banned, hate speech is

Anti-hate speech laws are there to prevent idiots from abusing free speech

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Free speech is not banned, hate speech is

Anti-hate speech laws are there to prevent idiots from abusing free speech

It is still a restriction since prosecutors and the Government decide what is "acceptable" speech (Canada has the same law btw).

The US of A goes to the other extreme, even allowing wackos to protest military funerals in the name of free speech...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7213R320110302

...but at least the law is clear.

In the case of Geert Wilders, it does appear to be a politically motivated prosecution since I understand the prosecutors had initially recommended that the case be dropped, but they were overruled. (to be clear, I do not agree with his views).

[Bakkels]

The law isn't meant to be clear so everybody can understand, it's meant to prevent crimes and bring justice. The world isn't black and white.
If your words call for people to use violence, or if what you say is racist, then yes, it's illegal.
In fact, our constitution is quite clear about this. And forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't racism illegal in the states too? That's what the Wilders trial is about; he isn't even convicted yet; it's civil court; people who felt offended and discriminated started a trial, it's not like he's been arrested or anything.
I understand what you mean, but it's not like the government is deciding what you can and cannot say. It's judges who ultimately decide that here. I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but what is? You've got to draw some lines to prevent people from abusing 'freedom of speech' to be racist or even cause violence.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

The law isn't meant to be clear so everybody can understand, it's meant to prevent crimes and bring justice.

This is where I beg to differ: If the law is not clear enough that even the simplest uneducated person can understand it, then there cannot be justice in its application.

The US of A goes to the other extreme, even allowing wackos to protest military funerals in the name of free speech...

It is in effect exactly the same, those wackos have to be very careful they don't cross the line either, you have to ensure you are staying within the law when exercising your rights
Holland has it set up in a relatively freshly written constitution to go by which takes previous legal challenges and rulings in hand, America has an old crusty constitution and has freshly written legal rulings and challenges which it has to take in hand and match to an elderly document.

As for that pillock wilders, its very simple. He stated his intention and it was nothing to do with free speech, though he did look very silly when his attempt was laughed at and didn't get the response he aimed for.
I suppose thats why he is dressing himsdelf up as a martyr now to see if he can con people that way.

[August]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Free speech is not banned, hate speech is

Anti-hate speech laws are there to prevent idiots from abusing free speech

So at best it's restricted speech but it's not free.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by August

So at best it's restricted speech but it's not free.

Erm no, it's a restriction on how you say it, not on what you say. Much like on subsim it's illegal to say "**ck off" while saying "get lost" isn't. Are we Subsimmers therefore restricted in our speech?
Similarly, as far as my knowledge and understanding of the Dutch law goes, in the Netherlands it would be legal to say "I think muslims should be killed" but not to say "you should kill muslims" as the latter incites people to actually go out and kill people.

Also, Wilders isn't convicted of anything yet. The trial he lost was about if he could be tried.

[gimpy117]

But don't you know? Fetuses have rights but those dirty gays don't!

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

But don't you know? Fetuses have rights but those dirty gays don't!

good one

[August]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

Erm no, it's a restriction on how you say it, not on what you say. Much like on subsim it's illegal to say "**ck off" while saying "get lost" isn't. Are we Subsimmers therefore restricted in our speech?
Similarly, as far as my knowledge and understanding of the Dutch law goes, in the Netherlands it would be legal to say "I think muslims should be killed" but not to say "you should kill muslims" as the latter incites people to actually go out and kill people.

Also, Wilders isn't convicted of anything yet. The trial he lost was about if he could be tried.

You guys can dance around it all you want but the fact remains your hate speech laws limit free speech. It goes far beyond directly inciting violence as your example implies and it sets the precedent for future interpretations that will widen the definition even more like such things always do.

If you think that's an unfair then so be it ,but it's no more unfair than calling my entire nation "homophobes" just because we have a slightly different definition of the word marriage than you.

[Bakkels]

There's no dancing around anything; I just don't agree with you.
Freedom in my opinion doesn't mean you can do whatever you want or feel like. That's called anarchy. There are boundaries, and yes, you should be very careful not to set them too strict, but there should be boundaries nonetheless.

Oh and for the record, I don't agree with, nor condone the other posters comment that generalizes all Americans by calling them homophobes.

There's no dancing around anything;

There is dancing round it, it is being done by August.
He made a statement that isn't true, unable to face up to that he is trying to imply it is almost true. The truth that is under his example of "freedom of speech" which is guaranted under law he faces restrictions along the same lines which the country that has the "freedom of speech" guaranteed by law(though he thought it didn't).
It is even funnier as he says the dutch version sets precedents which will be worked on , which is just like the US version where they precedents which will be worked on.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

Freedom in my opinion doesn't mean you can do whatever you want or feel like. That's called anarchy.

BTW, I don't say every US citizen is homophobic. But as a whole you are. Just look at all the mess when your government tries to approve laws giving gays equal rights to heterosexuals (not just talking about marriage here)

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

There's no dancing around anything; I just don't agree with you.
Freedom in my opinion doesn't mean you can do whatever you want or feel like. That's called anarchy. There are boundaries, and yes, you should be very careful not to set them too strict, but there should be boundaries nonetheless.

If that does not sound familiar to me. Do we just agree on this or have you just paste&copied from an earlier thread of mine? Yes, anarchy we talk about here, and the jungle'S law-of-the strongest - that is what total freedom without rules really mean. At the same time it also often is to be heared that freedom of this kind should also be given to the other, and that tolerance need to tolerate even the intolerant trying to destroy tolerance.

It is an asburdity in itself, no matter the scenario possible:

- You withhold the total freedom you claim for yourself from the other in order to prpotect your own freedom: then you are y tyrant, free in yourself, supressive to the other.

- You grant the total freedom of yours to the other as well, since then you deal with two individuals claiming unlimited freedom for themselves, both of you necessarily must come into conflict with each other when your freedom-spheres start to rub and cling to each other. The faster shooter wins, the stronger claims all the jungle for himself, the loser has to fall: that is anarchy then.

- You grant the total freedom and total tolerance you want for yourself to the other as well even when you know he is absuing this freedom and your tolerance to destroy and overthrow freedom and tolerance. Then you will your own fall and the destruction of freedom and tolerance. This fits a descritpion of "self-destructive" and "masochistic".

You can turn it and look at it from any angle you want, but claiming unlimited and total freedom - causes the destruction of freedom, inevitably, and necessarily ends in either anarchy where you are the more free the stronger you are, or submission to a foreign conqueror destroying your freedom in the name of his own ideas.

When thinking in absolutes, you must necessarily scratch the plural. There can be only one, single absolute, else it would not be absolute, total. Co-existence between two claims for absolute ideas, is impossible. The confrontation is inevitable, and only one absolute claim can prevail - that of the stronger. The other gets destroyed.

It is dangerous, self-destructive and short-sighted to demand absolute, toal freedom. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes!"

However, it all is an illustration how the good can give birth to the evil, and how good intentions alone not only do not mean much, but can even create the opposite of what they wanted. You see it right today: total protection for freedom leads to total security measures in society that totally destroy freedom: the "war" on terror. Total tolerance for the intolerant encourages the intolerant to try to destroy tolerance and replace it with their own totalitarian ideas: Islamisation. Total obedience to the law meant to protect the state and the society, leads to totaly tyranny: dictatorships like the regimes in Rumania, fascist Germany, Soviet Union, China. Total lack of authority in "anti-authoritarian" education leads to chiuldren who learn that they get away with it whatever they do, and thus are often some of the most brutal and unscrupulus egoists or crusaders for the right way to think the right thoughts later when they have grown up, putting their own authority and demand over the others.

Live with it everybody: in this world you destroy yourself and the other when thinking in terms of total freedom and total tolerance. It's anarchy and the law of the strongest, simply that. A myth especially in American culture where there shall be no boudaries and the frontier always is poushed more Wetswards or now: spacewards, but a dangerous myth neverthelss. Because as long as you do exist all alone on this planet, you will need to accept sharing, or become a evil villain yourself when not wanting to. Communities and civilisations do not survive and never have survived on the basis of unlimited freedoms, and tolerance for those wanting to destroy them.

Or to put it more general, and abstract: Structure and structuring means - limiting degrees of freedom. Unlimited potential and degrees of freedom you only have where structure is non-existent. Structure is the basis for higher orders of complexity. But it can go wrong and strangle you if you push it to far: overboarding bureaucracy may serve as an example.