Bad Dog...

[Jarlaxle]

“This arrest should serve as a warning to anyone posting such material online, or in any other capacity, that such views will not be tolerated.”

I think someone has lost sight of who's the Nazi in this episode.

I did not find the video "deeply offensive" nor did it cause me any "pain and hurt." I actually thought the concept of a "Nazi pug" who watches films of Hitler and salutes when you say "sieg heil" was funny, if tasteless; the execution and editing could have been better, but hey, it's YouTube, not Dave Chapelle. And speaking of Chapelle (and more than a few others), if "tasteless" is any kind of disqualifier for humor, then you're missing some really funny comedy.

In any event, one of the proper responses to Nazis in any context is to laugh at them.

Isn't the best humor tasteless?

[Lord Jim]

You insinuate that rubato isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Oh, I didn't mean to insinuate that Bill...

I'm more than happy to state it outright...

As for wes, he may not even be the sharpest spoon in the drawer, but I get the impression that he's trying to be funny and failing, which to me is just tedious...

And of course there are the endless non sequitur Youtube videos cluttering up the bandwidth...(As I mentioned before, I think wes has appointed himself the Plan B VJ...a position that really didn't need filling) the multiple consecutive posts, and the irritating deliberate lack of punctuation and clarity...

If he can't be bothered to post in a way that is minimally considerate of the reader, then I can't be bothered to read what he posts...I believe he has confused just being irritating with some sort of "style"...

Rube's comedy on the other hand springs largely from his complete obliviousness to just what a buffoon he is...He doesn't even notice the fright wig, red rubber nose and big floppy shoes he's wearing...it's Inspector Clouseau type humor...

A few days ago the guy went to all the trouble of posting an article in large bold type that completely disproved the totally inaccurate "point" he was feebly attempting to make...

Come on, does it get any more hilarious than that?

[Big RR]

Obviously no one is going to argue with any success that "I like to kill people" as speech implies any kind of right to actually kill people. Clearly it does not. But I sense a kind of linkage between speech and action that requires, at least from one perspective, keeping a very close (legal) eye on the speech. OTOH, there's dangerously slippery ground hidden not at all deeply beneath claims that "how some people feel about that" is at all a reliable measure against which to restrict speech.

Meade--I believe that the distinction the law draws is the proximity of the harm. If one yells "fire" in a crowded theater, then one may well cause a panic that could result in injuries, deaths, and property damage; however, one could yell fire in an empty theater without such immediate risk, and, thus it is not illegal. The same applies to the expression of political views, even repugnant ones; I can yell that one should take all the immigrants and ship them back across the border with no fear of arrest, but I could not single out someone walking down the street and say "Let's get him and take him back to Mexico". IMHO, free expression of all political views without fear of government reprisals is probably the single most important thing to keep a democracy, and I am vigorous in my defense of such speech. The government hasn't always agreed (as we saw in the 50s with the communist witch hunts and more recently with some of the actions taken against people expressing views against the war on terror or in sympathy with the "enemy"), but IMHO, that is why we should remain vigilant against such incursions. I am happy to denounce the views, but I do not think anyone should be punished for expressing them.

And face it, the best way to confront such views is to either ridicule them or counter them head on; suppressing them by legal means just drives them underground and elevates them to something so important that we have to alter our laws because we cannot refute them (at least that's what their supporters will say).

[Sue U]

What BigRR said. In a free society, there is absolutely no justification for governmental punishment or suppression of speech absent some genuine threat of incitement to immediate and serious harm.

[Lord Jim]

This is kind of funny...

This issue has me in agreement with Big RR and Sue, and (even more unusually) Meade in agreement with Scooter...

Strange bedfellows...

[Big RR]

See what the specter of Trump does

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh, I don't know that I agree with Scooter so much as wondering if he was applying the logic somewhat differently than youse chaps (and chappettes). There are certain implications of a blanket defense of "free speech" that go beyond the crowded theater/immediate harm. If I am free to advocate X verbally, why can I not enact X?

Obviously there are gradations of X - I might want to advocate whistling - obviously there's not much problem with actually whistling. I might advocate killing kittens - obviously there's a big problem with killing kittens. Aside from the arbitrary argument that "it's illegal", are there not implications regarding moral positions?

I don't know - if burning a flag is "speech", then why isn't refusing to hire a person not of one's own race?

[Sue U]

There are certain implications of a blanket defense of "free speech" that go beyond the crowded theater/immediate harm. If I am free to advocate X verbally, why can I not enact X?

Because that is the very core of freedom of speech: You can advocate anything, no matter the still-hypothetical harm, but when that speech is converted to an overt act that actually causes harm in violation of the law, that is what is prohibited.

Obviously there are gradations of X - I might want to advocate whistling - obviously there's not much problem with actually whistling. I might advocate killing kittens - obviously there's a big problem with killing kittens. Aside from the arbitrary argument that "it's illegal", are there not implications regarding moral positions?

Whether you advocate morality, immorality or whistling, the content of your advocacy cannot be suppressed (if we are to live in a free society). The state is properly neutral in such matters of persuasion.

I don't know - if burning a flag is "speech", then why isn't refusing to hire a person not of one's own race?

Flag burning is speech to the extent it is a demonstrative activity; if you are merely using a flag as fuel, then burning it is not "speech" (but may, for example, be arson; it all depends on the circumstances.)

Employment discrimination is not "speech," but is an act that results in harm prohibited by law. You can advocate all you want for hiring only from one's own "race," but actually doing so in a discriminatory manner (or creating a hostile work environment thereby) is within the scope of the government's regulatory authority over actions as distinct from opinions.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Got it. "Because we say so" - is really what it boils down to. I don't mind that though - it's fine. I'd not advocate racism in hiring at all, not even if it is free speech. It's wrong. I wondered if "because we say so" was at the root of Scooter's concern. I'll never know.

[liberty]

Perhaps the People’s Republic of Great Britain should publish a list of banned words actions and thoughts; I am thinking that if this guy knew he was going to go to jail he would have not made that video.

Hey, I know that the UK is a constitutional monarchy, but I couldn’t use monarch instead of republic, it wouldn’t work.


While we are on the subject expression through actions, let me ask you all this: Does anyone have any idea what it means when a person wears their pants in such a way as to expose part or all of their rear. It might be different in your area, but here I have only seen young black men do it, so perhaps it has some meaning associated with that culture or no meaning at all.

[Sue U]

Got it. "Because we say so" - is really what it boils down to.

How in the world do you get that? It is absolutely not at all "because we say so." It's because there is a distinction between words and actions. You are free to hold whatever beliefs and say whatever words you want. Our conception of free speech is that you are free to be an asshole and engage in all manner of assholery up to the point of actually causing harm to another. The government may make no judgment as to whether the content of your particular assholery should be permitted or not.

[rubato]

Got it. "Because we say so" - is really what it boils down to. I don't mind that though - it's fine. I'd not advocate racism in hiring at all, not even if it is free speech. It's wrong. I wondered if "because we say so" was at the root of Scooter's concern. I'll never know.

If by "we" you mean people capable of grasping the difference between self-directed and other-directed actions then yes. If by "we" you mean people capable of understanding that depriving another person of their legal and human rights is different from advocating that it be done, then yes. If by "we" you mean people who have a clear standard for where the limits of state power over the individual are based on protecting in the broadest way possible the liberty of the individual then yes.

You should try reading this:

http://www.bartleby.com/130/4.html

It is more valuable and less malleable than "holy writ" which is radically re-interpreted whenever it is found in a moral quagmire like the biblical advocacy of slavery, plural marriage, and prohibition of eating pork.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

"Because we say so" applies to laws that we the people have adopted. Why's that so controversial? It's just fact.

Is there some part of

I don't mind that though - it's fine.

that's not intelligible?

I'll ignore rubato's closing line of arrant rubbish - mendacity is par for his course.

[rubato]

"Because we NOW say so" (having wallowed in the darkness of misunderstanding for 1,800 years) is the sum of biblical exegesis.

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Duly ignored

[Sue U]

"Because we say so" applies to laws that we the people have adopted. Why's that so controversial? It's just fact.

Because "because we say so" is not a competent justification for any law or public policy. It is not enough that a law is adopted by we the people, because we the people are frequently idiots. It must stand the test of constitutionality -- in this case, the prohibition on abridging the freedom of speech.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Because "because we say so" is not a competent justification for any law or public policy

Because we say so

It is not enough that a law is adopted by we the people, because we the people are frequently idiots.

All laws are adopted because we (as in society) say so

It must stand the test of constitutionality -- in this case, the prohibition on abridging the freedom of speech.

But only because we say it must.

What else? Are you claiming some kind of supernatural authority for all these things?

[Sue U]

Honestly, what are you on about???

In a free society, we start from the premise that any governmental limitation on personal liberty must be justified by an identifiable and articulable need for the adequate functioning of that society, and then narrowly tailored to infringe no more than necessary to meet the need. In this regard it is strictly a utilitarian analysis.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Honestly, what are you on about???

In a free society, we start from the premise

"We start" - exactly my point!

I made a simple statement that laws are what we say they are (and I'm fine with it) and you keep banging on as if I just assassinated the Supreme Court. Lawd, even rubato understood what I meant.

Laws are what we say they are. (We meaning society as represented by legislatures, executives and the legal beagles).

[Lord Jim]

Honestly, what are you on about???

I confess to some bewilderment as well...

This isn't a "moral absolutism" versus "moral relativism" issue...

"Supernatural authority" one way or the other doesn't even enter into it...

This is about the distinction between "advocating" for some policy through speech versus actually "acting" on it...

It's not "what we say it is"; the concept of "the marketplace of ideas" is one of the most central principles upon which this nation was founded...

If one were not free to advocate for polices that are illegal, no law could ever be changed...

The proper remedy in a free society for speech advocating odious or repugnant polices isn't to prohibit that speech...

The remedy is to combat that speech with more speech...

Or as Jefferson put it:

"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

Empowering The State to determine what is and is not an acceptable position to express, is a solution far worse than the unpleasantness of having to tolerate the expression of toxic and/or repugnant speech...