Supreme Court rules for WBC


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

I find it sad that people would even argue if torture works or not

it's irelevant if it works or not - if you condone torture, you have crossed a line, regardless of if it works or not, a line that should never be crossed

Scarab Sages

I think the WBC should be sent on an all expenses paid vacation to a country like Iran. Just so they can see what a theocracy like what they want really is about. But they'd probably get the wrong idea.


@Sanakht Inaros: Interesting I don't doubt your experience...but I don't think you can go into greater detail as it is probably classfied. Especialy the one with FBI and the CIA getting true believers to cooperate in hours though.

But I do also know somebody who is in high places...and has said torture can work.

That is true...somebody who is being tortured will say anything to get you to stop...but torture involves knowing that person is doing that. I mean interragtors do that all the time. That is why it is time consuming. I am also confused...you say it does not work...is that because it will not work at all or does it take too long to be useful?

I agree with you...torture in about 99% of the cases is useless...uneneccessary which makes it imorale as well. Torture can be abused(beating a confession out of somebody)...torture is not something I think should be done at all except in extreme cases. But than again that is open for abuse(what defines a extreme case?) so it is just safer to not allowed it.

Again all of those doctors...psychologist...etc papers where did they conduct their scientifical studies?


Loztastic wrote:

I find it sad that people would even argue if torture works or not

it's irelevant if it works or not - if you condone torture, you have crossed a line, regardless of if it works or not, a line that should never be crossed

Agree 100%.

I also don't condone stealing...but will be sympathic to someone who is doing it to feed themselves.

I also don't condone killing people...unless of course it is in the defense of life and freedom...

I also don't condone torture...unless it is extremely neccessary to safe a life...

Even though there is exceptions to all the above...I still think there should be rather strong laws against them. And really can only see the self defense clause being worked into our leagle code.


John Kretzer wrote:
Loztastic wrote:

I find it sad that people would even argue if torture works or not

it's irelevant if it works or not - if you condone torture, you have crossed a line, regardless of if it works or not, a line that should never be crossed

Agree 100%.

I also don't condone stealing...but will be sympathic to someone who is doing it to feed themselves.

I also don't condone killing people...unless of course it is in the defense of life and freedom...

I also don't condone torture...unless it is extremely neccessary to safe a life...

The first two items on your list are situations that have been known to actually exist in the real world. The third is a pure fantasy. But even if it actually happened, anybody under torture will obviously say anything at all. They might tell the truth, they might lie, or they might be the wrong guy entirely and lie to make the pain stop in such a way that actively impedes saving lives just as much as a guilty party lying would.

When your position requires fantasy scenarios and would bring you no closer to the outcome you desire even when the fantasy scenario, it's time to throw in the towel.


Samnell wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Loztastic wrote:

I find it sad that people would even argue if torture works or not

it's irelevant if it works or not - if you condone torture, you have crossed a line, regardless of if it works or not, a line that should never be crossed

Agree 100%.

I also don't condone stealing...but will be sympathic to someone who is doing it to feed themselves.

I also don't condone killing people...unless of course it is in the defense of life and freedom...

I also don't condone torture...unless it is extremely neccessary to safe a life...

The first two items on your list are situations that have been known to actually exist in the real world. The third is a pure fantasy. But even if it actually happened, anybody under torture will obviously say anything at all. They might tell the truth, they might lie, or they might be the wrong guy entirely and lie to make the pain stop in such a way that actively impedes saving lives just as much as a guilty party lying would.

When your position requires fantasy scenarios and would bring you no closer to the outcome you desire even when the fantasy scenario, it's time to throw in the towel.

Actualy again show me hard scientific evidence that says torture does not work? Not some pycharist studying cases or where the goal of the torture was to beat a confession out of somebody...or anything that is not even remotely related to what I am talking about. I also could probably finsd similiar reports on how torture can wok.

Of course people will say anything to end the torture...only the dumbest of people will not realize this...so you check it...if it is not a lie or out of date...you start the torture again...when they realize only the truth will end the torture they will tell you the truth.

Evidently people don't even know what torture is. If they think you just stop when the person tells you something. That is the worst torturing technique ever. Tortue is not just inflicting pain on people it is also relies on reading people.

Torture can work...it is still wrong. Not saying it is right.

The Exchange

I do not care if torture is capable of giving any useful information or not. I do not condone it. If this is the level that we must stoop to, in an attempt to achieve our goals, we are doing it wrong. Some things there are just no exceptions for.


Crimson Jester wrote:

I do not care if torture is capable of giving any useful information or not. I do not condone it. If this is the level that we must stoop to, in an attempt to achieve our goals, we are doing it wrong. Some things there are just no exceptions for.

I'll drop this...as I think most people just don't like to think about ethic as much.

And it is off topic.


John Kretzer wrote:


Of course people will say anything to end the torture...only the dumbest of people will not realize this...so you check it...if it is not a lie or out of date...you start the torture again...when they realize only the truth will end the torture they will tell you the truth.

Evidently people don't even know what torture is. If they think you just stop when the person tells you something. That is the worst torturing technique ever. Tortue is not just inflicting pain on...

And in the crazy fantasy scenario that has never happened and almost certainly never shall which would permit torture on utilitarian grounds is naturally going to arise when we have the luxury of carefully scrutinizing each response. It's not like there's any urgency involved.

In the absence of that urgency, how could anybody condone any torture? The scenario not only never presents itself, but could never present itself by definition.

Sovereign Court

Samnell wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Loztastic wrote:

I find it sad that people would even argue if torture works or not

it's irelevant if it works or not - if you condone torture, you have crossed a line, regardless of if it works or not, a line that should never be crossed

Agree 100%.

I also don't condone stealing...but will be sympathic to someone who is doing it to feed themselves.

I also don't condone killing people...unless of course it is in the defense of life and freedom...

I also don't condone torture...unless it is extremely neccessary to safe a life...

The first two items on your list are situations that have been known to actually exist in the real world. The third is a pure fantasy. But even if it actually happened, anybody under torture will obviously say anything at all. They might tell the truth, they might lie, or they might be the wrong guy entirely and lie to make the pain stop in such a way that actively impedes saving lives just as much as a guilty party lying would.

When your position requires fantasy scenarios and would bring you no closer to the outcome you desire even when the fantasy scenario, it's time to throw in the towel.

Pure fantasy??? Really?? That is so not historically true. Just the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave the intel that prevented the LA attack. Please try to use actual facts when rebutting someones arguments instead of hyperbole that has already been proven false.


Post got a bit mangled in formatting. Shorter version then.

Galahad0430 wrote:


Pure fantasy??? Really?? That is so not historically true. Just the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave the intel that prevented the LA attack. Please try to use actual facts when rebutting someones arguments instead of hyperbole that has already been proven false.

Facts:

Quote:
What clinches the falsity of Thiessen's claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen's argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.

Apparently you and the Bush administration would have us believe that waterboarding lets you send messages into the past. Who knew you could time travel through torture?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's simple really.

When we torture we stoop to the level of the terrorists that threaten us. We become animals. We become less than what we aspire to be. We become the bad guys.

It doesn't work. And when you argue to justify why it does; you lessen yourself in the eyes of your fellow man. We call ourselves enlightened. We are supposed to be the good guys in America. So let's not act like it is EVER okay to use barbarism as a tool of intelligence.

Torture is not an answer. It is a waste of time, and a stain on morality to no end.

We are Americans; let's act like Americans, and not defend torture for any reason. Is that too much to ask?


dmchucky69 wrote:


We are Americans; let's act like Americans, and not defend torture for any reason. Is that too much to ask?

I'm quite sure that the circumstance which would potentially permit torture on utilitarian grounds would never come to pass in the real world for reasons mentioned in previous posts.

But that said I don't like the implication that not torturing people and not condoning the same is an "American" thing. Surely it's an obligation ,and an incredibly easy one to meet, of all decent people of any nationality. We're all apes here, whatever lines on the map we live between.

The Exchange

When innocent lives are on the line we don't have the luxury of pretending to be saints. Funny to see where people draw lines as to what they would do, and what they would allow by inaction

Sovereign Court

Samnell wrote:

Post got a bit mangled in formatting. Shorter version then.

Galahad0430 wrote:


Pure fantasy??? Really?? That is so not historically true. Just the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave the intel that prevented the LA attack. Please try to use actual facts when rebutting someones arguments instead of hyperbole that has already been proven false.

Facts:

Quote:
What clinches the falsity of Thiessen's claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen's argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.
Apparently you and the Bush administration would have us believe that waterboarding lets you send messages into the past. Who knew you could time travel through torture?

Again, selective quotes eh Samnell? The plot that was foiled due to info from Khalid was a totally different one. it involved the use of tanker trucks using hazmat placards, not the plane one. But I wouldn't expect intellectual honesty from an ideologue.


Galahad0430 wrote:


Again, selective quotes eh Samnell?

Not selective at all. You mentioned an LA terror plot. I googled and gave you what I got, which as expected turned out to be the opposite of what you claimed. If you're upset that I didn't read your mind then you have only yourself to blame for having such a profoundly silly expectation.

Galahad0430 wrote:


The plot that was foiled due to info from Khalid was a totally different one. it involved the use of tanker trucks using hazmat placards, not the plane one. But I wouldn't expect intellectual honesty from an ideologue.

All I am finding online is mentions of the Library Tower plot, such as this claim from professional liar Karl Rove:

Quote:


"I'm proud that we used techniques that broke the will of these terrorists and gave us valuable information that allowed us to foil plots such as flying aeroplanes into Heathrow and into London, bringing down aircraft over the Pacific, flying an aeroplane into the tallest building in Los Angeles and other plots," Mr Rove told the BBC.

I've searched under several permutations of Los Angeles, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Hazmat, trucks, waterboarding, terror, tankers, and the like. I even found a list of KSM's torture-induced confessions. The closest I get is this:

Quote:


11. A plan to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago by burning fuel trucks beneath or around it.

which is of course nothing like what you said.

I also came up with this:

Quote:


But there are many reasons to doubt Cheney's claims about torture's effectiveness. "The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any 'specific imminent attacks,'" McClatchy's Mark Seibel and Warren P. Strobel reported (4/24/09). The inspector general's findings were bolstered last December, when Vanity Fair reporter David Rose asked FBI director Robert Mueller if "any attacks on America [had] been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls 'enhanced techniques'?" Answered Mueller: "I don't believe that has been the case."

Obviously the inspector general of George Bush's CIA is a leftist ideologue who wants the terrorists to win. I mean the CIA is just riddled with that kind of person.

Intellectual honesty includes not sending the other guy on guessing games to figure out what you're talking about. I've been generous enough with my time and effort. So your turn.


Torture doesn't work for a very simple reason: You don't KNOW if the information you got is true. Once someone has given you information after torture, that information is deeply suspect. Now, remember that all the pro-torture people always pull the "ticking bomb" scenario - a scenario where a sharp time limit is at least part of the motivation for using torture.

If time limits are the reasons to use torture, then checking all the information is by definition time you do not have. This means it is completely unacceptable to use torture if your motivation is time limits. You would do far better directing that time into checking other data you already have.

The basic point, as has been said so many times before, is that torture is monstrous. It is a true stain on a country and administration. It has many consequences for the country using it.

It will stain the country's reputation and image abroad, something America is suffering right now.

It will increase the risk of terrorist attacks, because people are more willing to fight against a country employing torture.

It will cause fear in the domestic population, along with lessened support for the government even among those who would otherwise support it.

The people involved in it will go to any lengths they can to avoid scrutiny of it and shift blame for it, doing such things as faking records, lying in court and, perhaps, even murder.

It will provide suspect information that will only hinder the formation of a true image of what is happening. As other information is based on this, massive mistakes start cropping up. For an example of what bad information can do to a country, google for Curveball.

And so on, and so forth. It was a mistake of epic proportions to start allowing it. The consequences will be felt by all our grandchildren.

Do not lessen yourselves by being apologetics.

Dark Archive

Galahad0430 wrote:
Not completely true, that is only ODA contributuions. America, unlike most other countries, relies on ptivate charities to amuch larger extenet because of the limitations we put on government. Including all US contributions, we give .98% of our GNI to foreign aid. The only countries that give more as a percentage of GNI are Canada, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Sweden. Note that all those countries have immensely smaller economies than the US and that is what skews the percentage.

It is true that the US gives more Dollars than, e.g. Denmark, I will give you that. But it is still a lower percentage per capita. Don't get me wrong, I welcome the millions and millions of dollars donated by the US and I think the money is doing good. But Steven tried to use the donations of US to show how great ("compared to ANY nation..."), and that's what I took offense at. Is $10.000.000 US Dollars better than $5.000.000 "Danish" Dollars? Yes. But the US has a population of 309 million people, compared to Denmark's 6. I'm fairly sure the US doesn't come close to giving 50 times that of Denmark, including private contributions. The US GDP is 24% of the Global GDP, while Denmark's is roughly 0.5%, so I sincerely hope the US IS giving more in foreign aid.

Still, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and probably the other three countries you mentioned, do give a decent amount in private contributions as well. Possibly not as much (in GNP/GNI or whatever) as the US (I haven't checked the numbers), but still significant contributions.

*I use Denmark not out of a sense of pride, but out of familiarity.

Shadow Lodge

My question is this: When did "donations" become so freaking mandatory? Frankly, if I were in charge of the world for a day, I'd declare the US foreign national dept as nil, citing the millions that we have offered virtually every nation on the planet in aid.

I'm not saying that this type of aid shouldn't exist. But it is what it is, a donation. It shouldn't be automatically expected, and when we're pumping out millions of dollars worth of aid, you damn sure shouldn't criticize us for not doing more.

I'm sure that this post will generate a lot of hate thrown my way. But I stand by it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:

My question is this: When did "donations" become so freaking mandatory? Frankly, if I were in charge of the world for a day, I'd declare the US foreign national dept as nil, citing the millions that we have offered virtually every nation on the planet in aid.

I'm not saying that this type of aid shouldn't exist. But it is what it is, a donation. It shouldn't be automatically expected, and when we're pumping out millions of dollars worth of aid, you damn sure shouldn't criticize us for not doing more.

I'm sure that this post will generate a lot of hate thrown my way. But I stand by it.

It's expected because you, the US, promised it. If you're going to welch, accept the consequences of being unwilling to keep your contractual agreements.

Dark Archive

Kthulhu wrote:

My question is this: When did "donations" become so freaking mandatory? Frankly, if I were in charge of the world for a day, I'd declare the US foreign national dept as nil, citing the millions that we have offered virtually every nation on the planet in aid.

I'm not saying that this type of aid shouldn't exist. But it is what it is, a donation. It shouldn't be automatically expected, and when we're pumping out millions of dollars worth of aid, you damn sure shouldn't criticize us for not doing more.

I'm sure that this post will generate a lot of hate thrown my way. But I stand by it.

Fairly sure that'd be the first step towards completely destroying the world economy, as other countries would stop trading with you immediately.


Sissyl wrote:
... torture is monstrous. It is a true stain on a country and administration. It has many consequences for the country using it.

I agree, and I think dark stain of the actions where non-combatant US citizens tortured people (I'm still thinking "foreign national" versus "enemy combatant," but that's an entirely different thread) will haunt the relationships the US has with its own citizens, and relations with the residents of other countries and foreign governments, for years to come.

Sissyl wrote:
... And so on, and so forth. It was a mistake of epic proportions to start allowing it. The consequences will be felt by all our grandchildren.

Well, I didn't allow it, and I'm a US citizen ... but I can't deny it didn't happen. Even more strangely some folks in my country organized it and generated paperwork was to support it. That semi-sorta' freaks me out.

I still think the US's Alignment is Chaotic Good.

In spite of the fact we've done some horrible things as individuals (me personally, or Phred Phelps on the larger scene) or acting as a larger nation-state ... I think most of us work (sloppily and in a disorganized fashion) towards a more just, verdant, and peaceful world.

-- Andy

Liberty's Edge

Moro wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Worst decision the SCOTUS has handed down since they said that corporations are really individuals. If anybody has a right to grieve in peace, it is the families of fallen servicemembers. This case is about a group of fundies acting in an abusive manner...period. They can believe however they want...I really don't give a f~&% what they believe, it's not my place or desire to dictate how others believe. What they shouldn't be able to do (but now can apparently) is inflict their beliefs upon others at the most inapropriate of times with the sole intent being mental abuse.

You are completely missing the point. There is no need for the Supreme Court to solve this unpleasantness by issuing a blanket ruling that would restrict free speech for all.

The true issue at hand here is that the WBC harasses people in a distasteful manner near gravesites and such, which ould be easily solved by local ordinances restricting protests and demonstrations by area. If you don't want the WBC marching around near your graveyard, then pass a local law so that nobody can harass people there.

No, you're missing the point. This wasn't really a free speech issue, but the involved parties and the SCOTUS turned it into such. The man was being harrassed by a group of crazy @ssholes, he sued for emotional damages and won. He shouldn't have started out with the intent of turning this into a free speech issue, nor should the SCOTUS have viewed it as such. He should have simply tried to get a judgment and financially cripple the church.

So you can call it free speech all you want, but even free speech is limited. You can't yell "fire" in a theater because people can get hurt. Nor should you be able to belittle and humiliate the family of a fallen servicemember. Not all hurt is physical. Would you be defending these @ssholes if they decided to beat the guy instead of ruining his child's funeral? I didn't think so.


Andrew R wrote:
When innocent lives are on the line we don't have the luxury of pretending to be saints. Funny to see where people draw lines as to what they would do, and what they would allow by inaction

This thread...have you read any of it?


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Moro wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Worst decision the SCOTUS has handed down since they said that corporations are really individuals. If anybody has a right to grieve in peace, it is the families of fallen servicemembers. This case is about a group of fundies acting in an abusive manner...period. They can believe however they want...I really don't give a f~&% what they believe, it's not my place or desire to dictate how others believe. What they shouldn't be able to do (but now can apparently) is inflict their beliefs upon others at the most inapropriate of times with the sole intent being mental abuse.

You are completely missing the point. There is no need for the Supreme Court to solve this unpleasantness by issuing a blanket ruling that would restrict free speech for all.

The true issue at hand here is that the WBC harasses people in a distasteful manner near gravesites and such, which ould be easily solved by local ordinances restricting protests and demonstrations by area. If you don't want the WBC marching around near your graveyard, then pass a local law so that nobody can harass people there.

No, you're missing the point. This wasn't really a free speech issue, but the involved parties and the SCOTUS turned it into such. The man was being harrassed by a group of crazy @ssholes, he sued for emotional damages and won. He shouldn't have started out with the intent of turning this into a free speech issue, nor should the SCOTUS have viewed it as such. He should have simply tried to get a judgment and financially cripple the church.

So you can call it free speech all you want, but even free speech is limited. You can't yell "fire" in a theater because people can get hurt. Nor should you be able to belittle and humiliate the family of a fallen servicemember. Not all hurt is physical. Would you be defending these @ssholes if they decided to beat the guy instead of ruining his child's funeral? I didn't think so.

The WBC broke no laws, and did not seek this father out to specifically harass him. They simply put on a protest and stated their views within view of the burial ceremony. I don't care how distasteful their message is, they have every right to express it in any location allowed by law. If you don't like their choice of location and you're afraid this sort of scene might play itself out in a public location near you, then get off of your butt and apply pressure to your local politicians to make it illegal to demonstrate near a cemetery. Don't attempt to sue on a groundless claim of "what they be sayin' be hurtin' mah feelins" and then try to take the issue before the Supreme Court and have them legislate policy from the bench, that's not their job.

What the hell would this world come to if you could sue anyone you didn't agree with because they were speaking their minds in a place where you could see or hear it?

The Exchange

Moro wrote:
What the hell would this world come to if you could sue anyone you didn't agree with because they were speaking their minds in a place where you could see or hear it?

Wait... didn't that already happen?


WormysQueue wrote:
Wait... didn't that already happen?

Yep.

See Synder v. Phelps, No. 09-751.

The court held held a protest at a military funeral by a particularly odious group of folks was protected by the First Amendment, did not give rise to civil liability under the state law torts regarding deliberate infliction of emotional distress, was not an invasion of privacy, and was not a civil conspiracy.

-- Andy

Liberty's Edge

Moro wrote:
The WBC broke no laws, and did not seek this father out to specifically harass him. They simply put on a protest and stated their views within view of the burial ceremony.

And they had NO IDEA that what they were saying would cause severe emotional distress to the family of the person for whom the funeral was being held? If you believe that I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you...

Moro wrote:
I don't care how distasteful their message is, they have every right to express it in any location allowed by law. If you don't like their choice of location and you're afraid this sort of scene might play itself out in a public location near you, then get off of your butt and apply pressure to your local politicians to make it illegal to demonstrate near a cemetery.

I come back to the whole "fire in a theater" bit. If what you're saying will cause harm to another person, then it's not protected.

Moro wrote:

Don't attempt to sue on a groundless claim of "what they be sayin' be hurtin' mah feelins" and then try to take the issue before the Supreme Court and have them legislate policy from the bench, that's not their job.

What the hell would this world come to if you could sue anyone you didn't agree with because they were speaking their minds in a place where you could see or hear it?

How is this emotional assault any different than a physical assault (aside from the obvious)? It will have effects that will probably outlast any that might have been inflicted from a physical beating.

BLUF: They weren't just speaking their minds, they were saying something they knew to be inflammatory and would hurt people. That is their intent. They know that the reaction they get (emotional distress) will cause their message to receive coverage. They're emotionally abusing people to further their ends and the SCOTUS now says that's ok.

The Exchange

bugleyman wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
When innocent lives are on the line we don't have the luxury of pretending to be saints. Funny to see where people draw lines as to what they would do, and what they would allow by inaction

This thread...have you read any of it?

all of it, and i would still do horrible things to a terrorist or someone holding a child captive if there is ANY chance of saving the innocent. I would take being called a monster all day for any chance to protect the innocent. Allowing monsters to kill is as bad as helping them

The Exchange

I hope they all have a run in with the wrong group of vets.....


Uhhhh, seriously, the right not to be offended is one that has never existed in a free and open society, and never will. The reason you can't yell fire in a theater is that if you do, there will be chaos. As an extension of that chaos, people are likely to die. It is the same with why you can't incite violence at a demonstration losing its temper, it's because chaos happens, and people die.

Drawing parallels between those restrictions of free speech and a situation where people may be emotionally distressed, that shows only a lacking education.

The Exchange

Sissyl wrote:

Uhhhh, seriously, the right not to be offended is one that has never existed in a free and open society, and never will. The reason you can't yell fire in a theater is that if you do, there will be chaos. As an extension of that chaos, people are likely to die. It is the same with why you can't incite violence at a demonstration losing its temper, it's because chaos happens, and people die.

Drawing parallels between those restrictions of free speech and a situation where people may be emotionally distressed, that shows only a lacking education.

So what we need is some people bored and or pissed off enough to follow them around and make them suffer


If you can sue for emotional assault...than there goes any right for freedom of speech period. Also would destroy 99% of the comedians out there. D&D...or any RPG goodbye....Rap music...gone...heck every kind of music will go to. Movies...bye bye.

Sorry don't want to live in a world where you can sue for emtional distress....it would be a ligitation nightmare that you could not imagine.

Because once you open that door into out leagle system...you just opened a case for every nut out there who has found something offensive...causing emotional distress. Out leagle system is based on precedents.

What causes more emotional distress is entirely subjecting and entirely open ended it would be a nightmare to regulate...lets not open that particular pandora's box...instead let just pass a law called Respecting the Dead and say no protest are allowed within x distance of a graveyard...or maybe just make a noise ordience. But not make it about emotional distress...that path leads to madness.


Sissyl wrote:

Uhhhh, seriously, the right not to be offended is one that has never existed in a free and open society, and never will. The reason you can't yell fire in a theater is that if you do, there will be chaos. As an extension of that chaos, people are likely to die. It is the same with why you can't incite violence at a demonstration losing its temper, it's because chaos happens, and people die.

Drawing parallels between those restrictions of free speech and a situation where people may be emotionally distressed, that shows only a lacking education.

again, different "free and open" societies place the bar at different levels

I give you

Go to Go to Section 5 of the Public Order act.

which makes it illegal in the UK to deliberatly do something JUST to cause "Harassment, Alarm or Distress"

Grand Lodge

Loztastic wrote:
which makes it illegal in the UK to deliberatly do something JUST to cause "Harassment, Alarm or Distress"

Egads, half of my forum posts are criminal offenses in the UK!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Loztastic wrote:
which makes it illegal in the UK to deliberatly do something JUST to cause "Harassment, Alarm or Distress"
Egads, half of my forum posts are criminal offenses in the UK!

Only half? Have you been making lots of sensible posts recently?


Loztastic wrote:

I give you

Go to Go to Section 5 of the Public Order act.

which makes it illegal in the UK to deliberatly do something JUST to cause "Harassment, Alarm or Distress"

Naw, you can keep it. :D

Although in reading a bit more about it, I stumbled upon "affray," a word I don't ever recall seeing before.

"In many legal jurisdictions related to English common law, affray is a public order offence consisting of the fighting of two or more persons in a public place to the terror (in French: à l'effroi) of ordinary people."

-- Andy

Grand Lodge

Paul Watson wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Loztastic wrote:
which makes it illegal in the UK to deliberatly do something JUST to cause "Harassment, Alarm or Distress"
Egads, half of my forum posts are criminal offenses in the UK!
Only half? Have you been making lots of sensible posts recently?

Define sensible.


Loztastic wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Uhhhh, seriously, the right not to be offended is one that has never existed in a free and open society, and never will. The reason you can't yell fire in a theater is that if you do, there will be chaos. As an extension of that chaos, people are likely to die. It is the same with why you can't incite violence at a demonstration losing its temper, it's because chaos happens, and people die.

Drawing parallels between those restrictions of free speech and a situation where people may be emotionally distressed, that shows only a lacking education.

again, different "free and open" societies place the bar at different levels

I give you

Go to Go to Section 5 of the Public Order act.

which makes it illegal in the UK to deliberatly do something JUST to cause "Harassment, Alarm or Distress"

Yeah. I never said the UK remains a free and open society, did I? Laws on hate speech are the undertakers of the free and open society, and the entire West is indulging in them to gain a few points of political support for the government.


Affray is a great offence

used generally in two situations - mainly, when two people fight in the street, it's used to prosecute both of them

or, more seriously, when a group of people "tool up" and go out "looking for trouble"

The Exchange

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Loztastic wrote:
which makes it illegal in the UK to deliberatly do something JUST to cause "Harassment, Alarm or Distress"
Egads, half of my forum posts are criminal offenses in the UK!
Only half? Have you been making lots of sensible posts recently?
Define sensible.

Not TOZ, it says so in the dictionary!!!

Grand Lodge

Crimson Jester wrote:
Not TOZ, it says so in the dictionary!!!

What version? King James?

The Exchange

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Not TOZ, it says so in the dictionary!!!
What version? King James?

Urban.

Liberty's Edge

In Canada, protesting at a public military funeral would probably be a valid form of protest and the exercise of political free speech. Even if it is disturbing and upsetting to family members... to a point that is.

So I can understand and approve of a narrow portion of the SCOTUS' ruling from a Canadian point of view.

Protesting at a private funeral of a member of the military, however, is not protected.

In Canada, to disrupt the solemnization of a funeral is, in fact, a criminal offence. It is rarely prosecuted (I am not even sure if it ever has been in the past 100 years) but it remains an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Promoting hatred against an identifiable group, however, is utterly offensive in any context. I know the American experience protects this speech; Canada's does not.

In Canada, we have had the benefit of watching how far this can be taken and we have decided to reject that approach. Our principal guide for this has been the Holocaust and the consequences of doing nothing to prevent the spread of hatred. Unrestrained freedom of speech is not without consequence. Voltaire, Locke and Rousseau never knew about Dachau -- and their views were shaped without that vital bit of cultural evidence.

As a consequence, Canada does not permit Holocaust deniers to spread their filth in this country -- by the internet or otherwise -- and we will throw their ass in jail for it. We have, in fact, done so.

We have not had the problem of a WBC in Canada -- but if we did -- the publishers of that hatred would be in jail as well -- as surely as the sun rises and sets. We will not permit freedom of religion to be used as a shield to promote hatred against an identifiable group. We will, in fact, throw your ass in jail for it.

Make no mistake, the WBC members who publish their anti-gay hate would be imprisoned in Canada.

On balance, I prefer our approach. It is, however, an approach which we have only had a chance to develop and refine after having the benefit of watching nearly 200 years of the American experience to provide us with a reference and a guideline of how far is "too far".

So we have America to thank for our more nuanced and less absolutist approach to that constitutional freedom. For which we thank you.


@Steel_Wind: Our system is not so absolute...we just realize a couple of things..

1) It is better to let these crazies groups speak freely to keep a eye on them. I am going to guess the Holocaust deniers are...better organized and thus dangerous in Canada then here in America.

2) the trend of PC(politcal correctness) actualy kept meaningful debate from happening on a couple of things...and that is problem when your message is labveled as hate speech...you would go to jail...that is um a lot worse than sitting back and watching the crazies speak.


John Kretzer wrote:

@Steel_Wind: Our system is not so absolute...we just realize a couple of things..

1) It is better to let these crazies groups speak freely to keep a eye on them. I am going to guess the Holocaust deniers are...better organized and thus dangerous in Canada then here in America.

2) the trend of PC(politcal correctness) actualy kept meaningful debate from happening on a couple of things...and that is problem when your message is labveled as hate speech...you would go to jail...that is um a lot worse than sitting back and watching the crazies speak.

It also just makes the crazies saying, that those others are persecuting them, be correct.


Steel_Wind: Ah, yes... had Voltaire known about the AMERICAN death camp called Dachau, I am sure he would have written things differently.

Are you seriously suggesting Dachau was a consequence of american-style free speech? Or are you saying nazi Germany was famous for its fervent support for unregulated free speech? Or are you, as I asked above, ignorant enough that you think Dachau is a town in America? (I know, there probably is, or was, one, somewhere in the midst of nowhere...)

See, this is what happens when you don't have enough clue. There are two main schools of thought regarding free speech, Voltaire's and Rousseau's, and they differ mainly in how they view offensive speech. Rousseau thought offensive speech should be limited by law, Voltaire did not. America chose Voltaire's path, Canada chose Rousseau.

This, of course, lets Canadian government people get away with throwing people in jail for all sorts of things, and will be and has been harshly used against rightful protest against government policy. That is why the Rousseau style of freedom of speech suits governments just fine.


Steel_Wind wrote:
Promoting hatred against an identifiable group, however, is utterly offensive in any context.

To play Devil's advocate, don't you turn around and do exactly that towards holocaust deniers and the WBC? I certainly detect some hatred in the tone of your comments to 'throw their ass in jail'.

Just sayin'.


CourtFool wrote:
Steel_Wind wrote:
Promoting hatred against an identifiable group, however, is utterly offensive in any context.

To play Devil's advocate, don't you turn around and do exactly that towards holocaust deniers and the WBC? I certainly detect some hatred in the tone of your comments to 'throw their ass in jail'.

Just sayin'.

Ahh, but here is an example of my earlier point: he is on the same side of the issue as those people who get to decide what is or is not offensive.

Sovereign Court

Bruno Kristensen wrote:
Galahad0430 wrote:
Not completely true, that is only ODA contributuions. America, unlike most other countries, relies on ptivate charities to amuch larger extenet because of the limitations we put on government. Including all US contributions, we give .98% of our GNI to foreign aid. The only countries that give more as a percentage of GNI are Canada, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Sweden. Note that all those countries have immensely smaller economies than the US and that is what skews the percentage.

It is true that the US gives more Dollars than, e.g. Denmark, I will give you that. But it is still a lower percentage per capita. Don't get me wrong, I welcome the millions and millions of dollars donated by the US and I think the money is doing good. But Steven tried to use the donations of US to show how great ("compared to ANY nation..."), and that's what I took offense at. Is $10.000.000 US Dollars better than $5.000.000 "Danish" Dollars? Yes. But the US has a population of 309 million people, compared to Denmark's 6. I'm fairly sure the US doesn't come close to giving 50 times that of Denmark, including private contributions. The US GDP is 24% of the Global GDP, while Denmark's is roughly 0.5%, so I sincerely hope the US IS giving more in foreign aid.

Still, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and probably the other three countries you mentioned, do give a decent amount in private contributions as well. Possibly not as much (in GNP/GNI or whatever) as the US (I haven't checked the numbers), but still significant contributions.

*I use Denmark not out of a sense of pride, but out of familiarity.

I was not demeaning the contributions of those countries. The totals I was giving were a percentage, not total dollars. I was pointing out that the US is #7 on the list in percentage of GNI given to foreign aid not near the bottom as someone else claimed. You have to include private contributions so that you take into account the different political setups of the countries involved. And I completely respect the fact that Denmark is a leader in contributions as a percentage of GNI.

151 to 200 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Supreme Court rules for WBC All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.