Quick, dashing post

[silveradept]

...consisting mostly of links to strange things, like Lunchables. Since it was a "class" day, the only deviance from the routine was really that I spent some time giving KKY interviews to our MECs.

Since Red Day is coming up, I thought that bean sprouts with love messages might be worth thinking about.

And since I do claim to give you silly things, this is probably something that qualifies. A different state couldn't get the textbook stickers, so now they’re going straight to the state lawmakers. Why does this place have to look like Jesusland so Goddamned much? Or is that one of those things you can't say? This follows the heels of my subcultures prof saying that lots of high-school age kids have no idea that flag-burning is protected free speech, some saying that the government should be able to censor news publications... it's the school system at work, I suppose. First, they have to be loyal to the State, then they can be whatever. So long as they're loyal to the state and slaves to advertising.

Speaking of, I have to go to work tomorrow - I'm sure there’s an ironic joke there, and I think I might get it, but not fully. Either way, g'night!

Comments

[fred-smith.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah. I remember one politics lesson where it turned out almost everyone's long term goal was to own a semi-detached house, have a high paying job and start a family. Wow.

From reading the article on free speech, I must admit that I am part of the problem. During my high school years I supported the laws against incitement of racial hatred and wanted to see a law against incitement of religious hatred. These laws protect the community by limiting free speech. Its not technically the same thing, of course, because we do not have a constitution in the same way that you do.

[silveradept]

Well, we usually make the distinction between free speech that may happen to be inflammatory (the Klan is allowed to have rallies) and inciting someone to action with inflammatory speech (that will bring the police very quickly). Speech is protected, incitement is not.

[fred-smith.livejournal.com]

This makes sense. Recently, there was a documentary on TV showing British National Party meetings. The leader of the BNP warned people about what would happen to their wives, daughters and young boys if the Muslims could get their way. Essentially, their goal in the neighbourhood was to spread distrust between Muslims and white people in the hope of causing a race riot, because interracial violence is good for their cause.

In such a situation, I'm quite okay with limiting the BNP's freedom of speech. Its difficult to say exactly where speech ends and incitement begins. The BNP leader was never arrested, as that would make a matyr of him.

[silveradept]

The rule of thumb in these cases is whether or not action happens as a result of speech. If you can link someone going out and clubbing their Muslim neighbor to death because of that speech, they'll haul him up before the Assizes and charge him with hate speech. But if all they do is sit and talk about how much the Muslims are infidels, it'll probably pass.

The real fun gradients happen when you try to infer a discrimination action as a result of the speech. But again, if links can be provided that someone discriminated based on something they shouldn't have, and they have ties to a particular organization, that organization will get some serious scrutiny...

...but until you can prove they're the cause of the action, not the individual, they can still exist. Thus, Klan rallies, even to this day.

[fred-smith.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Its a sad case, at least our more draconian measures limit the freedom of the BNP to spread hatred openly. But its one of these problems that will always exist as long as there's hate. So we cannot do very much.