Scotish man convicted for "offensive speech"

[*michaelsean*]

(04-03-2018, 05:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh he very much is not. This is your president. And in times where Trump is president, Americans don't get to lecture western Europe about freedom of speech. We can clearly see the Trump version of that concept, the one your electorate went to. It's having a state propaganda channel to flatter the leadership, and threaten unwilling media to sue them, to open up the libel laws for being able to. Not for obvious lies - for being "dishonest". Trump calls the uncooperating media the enemy of the people. So these are things going on in US leadership these times. It just looks funny when you point to some other democracies and their "authoritarian shitheads" with that huge elephant in your own yard.



Don't call us stupid kids. Please. We don't get bullied all the time. It's also quite easily avoidable, don't train your dog Sieg Heil poses and share it on youtube. And I agree, people should feel free to be such douchebags, probably, there's a point that can be made about this. But don't exaggerate this example to a large freedom of speech crisis in Europe.

I wouldn't call it lecturing, but certainly we can comment on free speech in Europe.  Nothing about our free speech has changed.  I assume you are talking about Fox which is a privately owned company and can say what they want. 

[Millhouse]

Yeah free speech in Europe in general is more restrictive than it is here, for better or for worse.

One thing I read recently was a vegan woman in France was arrested and charged for 'condoning terrorism' on Facebook after the terrorist incident in that supermarket that left a few people dead. The butcher of the store was one of the ones killed, and she as a vegan basically said he deserved to die as he was part of murdering animals (to paraphrase). "'So then, you are shocked that a murderer is killed by a terrorist.' wrote the animal rights activist, named as Myriam by local media. 'Not me. I've got zero compassion for him, there's justice in it.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5558079/Vegan-said-no-sympathy-butcher-murdered-French-shop-faces-five-years-jail.html

[Dill]

(04-03-2018, 10:07 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Yeah, i've noticed that European people are perfectly okay with their governments being authortarian shitheads.

But I guess after centuries of being shitted on by kings, religious institutions, and foreign invaders, this is just par the course for Europe. Shame really.

Some of them had some bad experiences when they DIDN'T repress hate speech. 

Really bad in fact.

So the memory lingers.

[Arturo Bandini]

(04-03-2018, 05:52 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Yeah free speech in Europe in general is more restrictive than it is here, for better or for worse.

One thing I read recently was a vegan woman in France was arrested and charged for 'condoning terrorism' on Facebook after the terrorist incident in that supermarket that left a few people dead. The butcher of the store was one of the ones killed, and she as a vegan basically said he deserved to die as he was part of murdering animals (to paraphrase). "'So then, you are shocked that a murderer is killed by a terrorist.' wrote the animal rights activist, named as Myriam by local media. 'Not me. I've got zero compassion for him, there's justice in it.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5558079/Vegan-said-no-sympathy-butcher-murdered-French-shop-faces-five-years-jail.html

Of course, she got condamned !! Actually people were shocked she wasn't condemened to more than she got.

It's different philosophy, different cultures.

Who would be happy that the dude working in Wallmart for beef get killed by a crazy man with a knife ? Really ?

Another one get condamned because he was happy a cop was killed. 

That's our laws, you have yours.

Being that much stupid is reprehensible by law.

What would you have done if some people danced during 911 ?? Accept their free speech ? Or punch them down ?

[*michaelsean*]

(04-03-2018, 06:27 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Of course, she got condamned !! Actually people were shocked she wasn't condemened to more than she got.

It's different philosophy, different cultures.

Who would be happy that the dude working in Wallmart for beef get killed by a crazy man with a knife ? Really ?

Another one get condamned because he was happy a cop was killed. 

That's our laws, you have yours.

Being that much stupid is reprehensible by law.

What would you have done if some people danced during 911 ?? Accept their free speech ? Or punch them down ?

“That’s our laws you have yours” seems to be a one way street sometimes.

I might have punched someone for dancing on 9/11, but I wouldn’t be in favor of it being criminal.

I wonder what the vegan think about animals who eat animals.

[Arturo Bandini]

(04-03-2018, 06:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: “That’s our laws you have yours” seems to be a one way street sometimes.

I might have punched someone for dancing on 9/11, but I wouldn’t be in favor of it being criminal.

I wonder what the vegan think about animals who eat animals.

She has to take responsability for what she's saying that's just it. 

You can't go full ****** and go away with it. She knew the laws because she was french. If I someday come to the USA, I will respect the law of the USA. 

[Millhouse]

(04-03-2018, 06:27 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Of course, she got condamned !! Actually people were shocked she wasn't condemened to more than she got.

It's different philosophy, different cultures.

Who would be happy that the dude working in Wallmart for beef get killed by a crazy man with a knife ? Really ?

Another one get condamned because he was happy a cop was killed. 

That's our laws, you have yours.

Being that much stupid is reprehensible by law.

What would you have done if some people danced during 911 ?? Accept their free speech ? Or punch them down ?

I wasnt being critical of it, just pointing out a difference is all. Because over here she would not have been arrested as would the guy up in Scotland, which as I said, for better or for worse.

[Arturo Bandini]

(04-03-2018, 07:17 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I wasnt being critical of it, just pointing out a difference is all. Because over here she would not have been arrested as would the guy up in Scotland, which as I said, for better or for worse.

It wasn't against you.

And this woman didn't go in jail. She had to pay a bill and got a warning.

You don't go in jail for these kind of things except if you do it on daily basis.

[hollodero]

(04-03-2018, 05:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I wouldn't call it lecturing, but certainly we can comment on free speech in Europe.

Sure you can comment. And I can comment that it's strange to call european leaders "authoritarian shitheads" and then say "Trump doesn't count" when the response is such.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-03-2018, 07:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure you can comment. And I can comment that it's strange to call european leaders "authoritarian shitheads" and then say "Trump doesn't count" when the response is such.

Not really what you said though. You said Americans dont get to lecture Europeans on free speech while Trump is president. Now I would never deign to lecture. Discuss the differences maybe.

[Dill]

(04-03-2018, 11:31 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, "not backed up" is a matter of perspective. Overall, yeah I too think Trump would very much like to run things in that fashion, as you said, I forgo examples.
Europe's certainly not perfect and critique is always fine, but I still feel like doubling down on the point that in these times it's a bit out of place for the US to call European leaders authoritarian shitheads and European voters prone to said figures. As of now, it's the US prone to that Trump guy.

We suffer a bit from social amnesia on this side of the pond. One consequence of that is that many Americans cannot really define or recognize authoritarian leadership. E.g., when Trump says we should have "taken the oil" after conquering Iraq, many saw no problem with that fundamental disavowal of a liberal international order based upon universal human rights.  Nothing authoritarian about a Muslim ban--just protecting our borders. What is the use of having nuclear weapons if we are never going to use them, can you tell me that? Americans learn Hitler was a "bad guy who killed Jews" but little about the Nazi rollback of the liberal Weimar state to make Germany great again--especially his war on the "lying" press, the first enemy of every authoritarian leader.  We compare everyone we don't like to Hitler and then we can't compare anyone to Hitler. You European types pioneered a psychology geared to identifying authoritarian personalities. We didn't need to since our leaders are democratically elected and constrained.

Another consequence is a double standard to which we are largely blind.  Institutionalized, mass chattel slavery of millions doesn't really count against us when talking about you authoritarian Europeans and your evil history, nor does the century of legal segregation that followed, which respected states rights and not the dictates of some all powerful central government. It's not "authoritarian" when separate is equal. So we fought Hitler with a segregated military to end fascist racist authoritarianism. Free speech for white people has been the norm since the founding, with war time and Communist exceptions.  African Americans and Socialists have had a somewhat different experience which is a digression and beside the point when we are talking about the rights of most Americans.

From the time the first English settlers landed in North American, they noticed that Native Americans were not making the best use of their land. White people taking it and putting it to better use was good economics, and that land was for the most part appropriated democratically, by wars duly voted on and via policies propounded by duly elected officials, not some jack-booted thug who called himself "Fuehrer" or "Commissar."  Japanese were interned as much for their protection as ours. 

So I hope this helps you understand that basically it is different when we do authoritarian stuff.

It isn't even really doing it when we do it.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-03-2018, 07:57 PM)Dill Wrote: We suffer a bit from social amnesia on this side of the pond. One consequence of that is that many Americans cannot really define or recognize authoritarian leadership. E.g., when Trump says we should have "taken the oil" after conquering Iraq, many saw no problem with that fundamental disavowal of a liberal international order based upon universal human rights.  Nothing authoritarian about a Muslim ban--just protecting our borders. What is the use of having nuclear weapons if we are never going to use them, can you tell me that? Americans learn Hitler was a "bad guy who killed Jews" but little about the Nazi rollback of the liberal Weimar state to make Germany great again--especially his war on the "lying" press, the first enemy of every authoritarian leader.  We compare everyone we don't like to Hitler and then we can't compare anyone to Hitler. You European types pioneered a psychology geared to identifying authoritarian personalities. We didn't need to since our leaders are democratically elected and constrained.

Another consequence is a double standard to which we are largely blind.  Institutionalized, mass chattel slavery of millions doesn't really count against us when talking about you authoritarian Europeans and your evil history, nor does the century of legal segregation that followed, which respected states rights and not the dictates of some all powerful central government. It's not "authoritarian" when separate is equal. So we fought Hitler with a segregated military to end fascist racist authoritarianism. Free speech for white people has been the norm since the founding, with war time and Communist exceptions.  African Americans and Socialists have had a somewhat different experience which is a digression and beside the point when we are talking about the rights of most Americans.

From the time the first English settlers landed in North American, they noticed that Native Americans were not making the best use of their land. White people taking it and putting it to better use was good economics, and that land was for the most part appropriated democratically, by wars duly voted on and via policies propounded by duly elected officials, not some jack-booted thug who called himself "Fuehrer" or "Commissar."  Japanese were interned as much for their protection as ours. 

So I hope this helps you understand that basically it is different when we do when we do authoritarian stuff.

It isn't even really doing it when we do it.

Jesus have a little pride. Hint: they’re not going to become your besties now.

Edit:So we can’t comment rightly or wrongly on authoritarianism because slavery? Talking about Putin is amnesia if we don’t include the Indians?

[hollodero]

(04-03-2018, 07:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Not really what you said though. You said Americans dont get to lecture Europeans on free speech while Trump is president.  Now I would never deign to lecture. Discuss the differences maybe.

I never accused you of lecturing. I explicitly accused the OP of lecturing, and I did that based on the fact that he was rather judging than talking about differences. I mean, how did you even weasel into the picture in the first place? You could call Europe what you want and I couldn't be mad at you.

(04-03-2018, 07:57 PM)Dill Wrote: So I hope this helps you understand that basically it is different when we do when we do authoritarian stuff. 

Yeah well, I'd be the last person to make a fuzz about that one, right. It's not really just about all that though, everyone's got their blind spots, that's not so specific to the US. In the end, I just don't like it when Europeans are accused of flocking to authoritarian figures, based on how guys that train Hitler dogs are treated. There's little I can do, I just can think "that's a bit ridiculous, and also look who's talking, the guys that went for Trump." What's next, you slam us for nepotism? :)

[Dill]

(04-03-2018, 08:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Jesus have a little pride.  Hint: they’re not going to become your besties now.

Edit:So we can’t comment rightly or wrongly on authoritarianism because slavery?  Talking about Putin is amnesia if we don’t include the Indians?

Easy Mike. Some Europeans are already my "besties."

Your inferences are splaying wildly here. 

Europeans may comment, rightly or wrongly, on our current authoritarian leader, even if they have had some in the past. And my post was explaining why.  

If we want to talk generally about a supposed European tendency to authoritarianism to deflect criticism of Trump, a tendency supposed absent in us freedom-loving Americans, then yes, there is a great deal of amnesia in that, which may be challenged by mention of slavery and segregation, along with addressing the specifics of Trump's behavior and values.

None of this authorizes an inference that one cannot criticize Putin's takeover of Russian News media without mentioning the Trail of Tears. 

It is because of slavery, along with all those European authoritarian regimes, that we ought to be looking closely at the problem of authoritarianism, understanding what it is before dismissing it, but certainly speaking out against it--and even if "we did it too."    

[StLucieBengal]

(04-03-2018, 05:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh he very much is not. This is your president. And in times where Trump is president, Americans don't get to lecture western Europe about freedom of speech. We can clearly see the Trump version of that concept, the one your electorate went to. It's having a state propaganda channel to flatter the leadership, and threaten unwilling media to sue them, to open up the libel laws for being able to. Not for obvious lies - for being "dishonest". Trump calls the uncooperating media the enemy of the people. So these are things going on in US leadership these times. It just looks funny when you point to some other democracies and their "authoritarian shitheads" with that huge elephant in your own yard.



Don't call us stupid kids. Please. We don't get bullied all the time. It's also quite easily avoidable, don't train your dog Sieg Heil poses and share it on youtube. And I agree, people should feel free to be such douchebags, probably, there's a point that can be made about this. But don't exaggerate this example to a large freedom of speech crisis in Europe.

Where has Trump silenced speech?

Where is our state media?

Obama phone tapped uncooperating media and their family. Trump has done nothing except call out obvious bias.

Where did Trump open up libel laws?

It actually looks like you just took away the fake news headlines and ran with it.

Europe is filled with idiots. There is a reason we had to save you all twice now. We can speak up when we see them doing something dumb, because it usually forces us to ride in to save you.

As for the Hitler dog..... it’s dumb but shouldn’t be a crime.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-03-2018, 08:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: I never accused you of lecturing. I explicitly accused the OP of lecturing, and I did that based on the fact that he was rather judging than talking about differences. I mean, how did you even weasel into the picture in the first place? You could call Europe what you want and I couldn't be mad at you.



Yeah well, I'd be the last person to make a fuzz about that one, right. It's not really just about all that though, everyone's got their blind spots, that's not so specific to the US. In the end, I just don't like it when Europeans are accused of flocking to authoritarian figures, based on how guys that train Hitler dogs are treated. There's little I can do, I just can think "that's a bit ridiculous, and also look who's talking, the guys that went for Trump." What's next, you slam us for nepotism? :)

No I know you didn’t accuse me of lecturing. I just wanted to reinforce that nobody should be lecturing if that’s what they were doing. Probably reads differently than it sounded in my head.

[Dill]

(04-03-2018, 08:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah well, I'd be the last person to make a fuzz about that one, right. It's not really just about all that though, everyone's got their blind spots, that's not so specific to the US. In the end, I just don't like it when Europeans are accused of flocking to authoritarian figures, based on how guys that train Hitler dogs are treated. There's little I can do, I just can think "that's a bit ridiculous, and also look who's talking, the guys that went for Trump." What's next, you slam us for nepotism? :)

Well, I have to agree with you on this. 

And add that one of the most mystifying aspects of the Trump phenomenon is the almost studied inability of so many Americans to see anything fundamentally disturbing in his political/policy comments.  Millions will say they "don't approve" of mimicking a disabled person or publicly criticizing women's looks, but they are not sure what damage he could do to domestic or foreign policy, simply by following his ignorant bully instincts.  He got the tax bill through, right? And a Supreme Court justice?  Thank heaven we are not prone to authoritarian leaders.

[*bfine32*]

No doubt, I blame Trump

[hollodero]

(04-03-2018, 08:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Where has Trump silenced speech?  

Where is our state media?

Obama phone tapped uncooperating media and their family.  Trump has done nothing except call out obvious bias.

Where did Trump open up libel laws?

I said he threatened it. Which he did.

Also, that Obama tapped some folk - I heard Merkel, and that's all I need to know - is something I never really liked about him. So how does that work. Because of Obama, does Trump get a freebie on calling the media enemy of the people now? Do these unrelated things equal out somehow?

And lastly, to me FOX is a republican propaganda outlet. I guess it's because of donors and money and tax cuts and such. But that's your state media, congratulations, it really looks like Kazachstan TV.
I mean, talk about obvious bias. Trump listens to FOX, changes policies because of FOX, retweets FOX, recruits personnel from FOX, dines with Hannity. It doesn't get much closer than that.

(04-03-2018, 08:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Europe is filled with idiots.

Well, then there's really not much point in talking to me, right. Keep that in mind.

[Dill]

(04-03-2018, 08:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Where has Trump silenced speech?  
Where is our state media?
Obama phone tapped uncooperating media and their family.  Trump has done nothing except call out obvious bias.
Where did Trump open up libel laws?
It actually looks like you just took away the fake news headlines and ran with it.    
Europe is filled with idiots.  There is a reason we had to save you all twice now. We can speak up when we see them doing something dumb, because it usually forces us to ride in to save you.
As for the Hitler dog..... it’s dumb but shouldn’t be a crime.

Wow Lucy.  If we want to identify authoritarian traits in Trump, we don't do that be assessing only achieved policy goals.

We do it by assessing intent and behavior.

So the proper question is--when has Trump ever attacked the press as an institution, or sought to silence reporters? When has he ever favored news organizations which present him in a positive light, like the truth-telling Fox News, and disparaged those who do not, like the Lying New York Times?

As for our state media, have you looked into the relation between The Sinclair Broadcast Group and Trump?

What sort of media are telling you Obama wiretapped "uncooperating media and their family"?

Bush, Obama--every former president agrees that a free press is foundational to democracy, even when it criticizes the president. Has Trump ever said that--defended the free press?

How did we "save Europe" exactly. And twice? What are you referring to?