Newsflash: Spain "not the Arabian desert of 14 centuries ago..."

[notyoueither]

Let's give DRo his thread back.

[DRoseDARs]

And again I say:

[DRoseDARs]

Actually, there's a kind of facination in watching a threadjacking unfold before one's eyes...

[notyoueither]

Especially when you were in on it. Squid slapping indeed.

[Drake Tungsten]

Damn, we had that thread on the ropes, NYE. Why'd you have to puss out on me?

[DRoseDARs]

For thrice I say:

There's something in the chocolate I'm eating, I'm sure of it...



Speaking of which, I can't go another round right now. I desire to do other things, like playing C3C.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Something about "inciting violence" comes to mind. Probably don't want like-minded morons getting the idea that it's ok to beat their wives since some imam wrote a book. One less opportunity to shirk responcibility for your own actions.

So you consider this 'inciting violence' so that it can be banned? What if you have a book saying if your child gets rowdy, you should smack him firmly on the butt, but without excess. Should that book be banned because it may incite child abuse?

I'm just glad that in the US something like this wouldn't be banned. Just because we think it's wrong doesn't mean we should silence it. That's also part of freedom of speech... freedom for the one we don't like.

Smacking your child on the butt is allowed under US law. Smacking your wife around if she gets rowdy isn't, unless she consents to it.

How is this not inciting violence?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Instructing people how to physically harm others is not ok and should not be considered free speech anymore than yelling fire in a movie theater.

So, you want to ban all books on martial arts as well? Where do you draw the line?

Huh? Martial arts books do not suggest that you beat people senseless if they annoy you. They provide techniques for beating people senseless. There's a difference between information on how to do something and advice that you do it. That's why you can buy books on how to build a homemade bomb, but not ones that suggest you use one against suitable targets.

[Drake Tungsten]

Martial arts books do not suggest that you beat people senseless if they annoy you.

I bet they exist. Not every martial artist is like Mr. Miyagi.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sprayber
How about movies where wife beating is depected?

If you present wife-beating in a manner that suggests you approve of it then you can get your work restricted.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Martial arts books do not suggest that you beat people senseless if they annoy you.

I bet they exist. Not every martial artist is like Mr. Miyagi.

If a martial arts book suggests that you commit acts of violence in situations where violence is not a legally justifiable solution then they should indeed be censored.

Inciting violence. One of the few exceptions to free speech.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What if the movie is called "How to Beat Your Wife The Muslim Way"?

If it doesn't suggest that you actually do it then I'm fine with it.

I love technicalities.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Oh, should I say that is in regards to not being allowed to promote hatred (or violence) against an identifiable group, and not screaming something in a theatre?

Promotion of hatred, while certainly offensive, falls quite clearly under the purview of free speech in civilized nations.

By that definition only the US is civilised.

Although I do disagree with hate laws, I also believe that inciting violence against a class of people (go burn down a random Jews house!) should be equivalent to inciting violence against a specific person (go burn down X's house).

[Drake Tungsten]

By that definition only the US is civilised.

Exactly...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sprayber


You touch on a topic I was going to bring up because I understand what you are saying and I appreciate the arguement. There have been instances here in the US as well of certain organizations that hide behind the freedom of speech arguement that I would have no problem with the government doing away with them. I was trying to look at it from the other side of the issue.

I have no problem with instruction manuals on illegal acts as long as they do not condone the acts themselves (i.e. it's okay to tell somebody how to violate a law, but not okay to tell them to do it)