The end of Free Speech?

BWX

You aren't the only one- but coming from the guy who blames the London terror attacks on the US and Israel, I am not surprised he started this thread.

OldBuzzard

Actually Raid....in my last example, in the State of Ohio, and in most other states of the Union, the Counsoler is REQUIRED BY LAW to inform the proper authorities that the person he is treating is a pedofile, and is required go give them any and all information that they request. It matters not if the person giving treatment is a doctor or not.

You seem to want 'grey areas', but when it's on paper, in black and white, there are no grey areas. You can't decide that somethng is against the law in one case, and not against the law in another. That leads to chaos.

Reporters are not 'Holy Men' and 'untouchable'. They are nothing more than common citizens, who happen do be doing a particular job. They have the same rights, and RESPONSOBILITIES as any other citizen.

raid517

Really, honestly. I have no idea what mind altering substances you are on. What has any of this got to do with anything I said?

Like I said, the problem with conservatives is they have no subtlety, they have no middle ground. It is a blindness if you will, a lack of insight, a short sighted and blikered view of the world.

And again I do not see torture in any sense as being a lesser crime - nor do I welcome the implication that I might.

GJ

raid517

So are you actually saying that legally doctors, priests, psychaitrists, lawyers or whoever have no right whatsoever to confidentiality in your society? And you approve of this?

Can anyone confirm this? Because if it's true, then I freely confess I find it utterly sickening.

What value does your so called freedom of speech have if there is no gurantee in law that you are also free to not speak when your government compels you to do so?

Freedom of speech within such a context is patently worthless.

GJ

raid517

Like I care about your opinion, almost as much as I care whether you take your next breath or not. Which to be honest, probably isn't very much.

When I want your view on anything I have to say (which is never) I will be sure to let you know.

GJ

Gabriel_Etranil

You do indeed have a problem with comprehension, everything you said completely contradicts yourself. Since you do have a problem with comprehension I will spell it out for you.

The suffering of one(1) man is less(<) than the suffering of many men(10) - THEN IT IS A LESSER CRIME THAN MASS MURDER

For your reference here is the definition of the word lesser:

Lesser - smaller in amount, value, or importance, especially in a comparison between two things

By definition in comparison between Torture and Mass Murder, torture is a lesser crime.

So by your justifications of 'middle ground' and 'gray areas' the crime of TORTURE is out weighed by the crime of MASS MURDER and is JUSTIFIABLE to COMMIT TORTURE to prevent or bring to justice those that will and have committed MASS MURDER.

As long as you still stick with your middle ground talking points and attacks us 'conservatives' for seeing only 'black and white' about the law then you are condoning torture as not breaking the law when it is in the best intrest of the safety of the people. I as a 'black and white conservative' do not support torture but as a 'wishy washy' person you do. Or are you just completely wrong about there truly being any room for 'interpretation' and 'middle ground' for LESSER crimes as long as they prevent/solve Larger crimes?

raid517

Am I hell as like 'condoning torture'! Trying to follow your warped chain of reasoning is certainly torture enough for me though. Since when exactly is torture something that is in the public interest? (I have a feeling I'm going to regret asking that, as I'm sure that some of the guys on the right here might argue that it can be).

Get it right, I don't condone murder, rape, torture or any of those things. However when a law is seen to not be serving the people in the way in which it was intended, I do think it is just to challenge that law and to have it reinterprited in order that it can be made to better serve the public interest.

No one got tortured here, no one got killed, no one was raped. All that happend was that someone reported a story about someone who was close to the President who said that he had screwed up. If you can't see the absurdity of comparing this to murder, torture and rape - and other such horrible crimes, then I'm certainly not going to waste any time tyrying to explain it to you.

GJ

Gabriel_Etranil

My warped chain or reasoning? Your the one claiming that the law has grey areas and as long as it benefits the general public interest then it is not a crime. You've got the warped views here mister. YOU HAVE A COMPREHENSION PROBLEM, this arguement of torture is not an arguement I AM MAKING, it is using YOUR LOGIC of a 'lesser crime' being dismissable in the face of a larger crime. The public good of preventing events like the London bombing, if it's the US's fault for the occurance then (in your logic) commiting torture if it led to information to prevent this bombing then it is justifiable in your logic. Torture is crime and should not be permitted for any reason, it is you "middle ground/gray area" logic which would promote this as a justifiable act.

So if you don't believe in a law then you can break it?

And the claim is that of a Bush staff member leaking the information to the reporter in order to retaliate against that member who was critical of the President. Why are you so against this if you want the Bush staff to pay? I want whomever it be to get in trouble for what he/she has done, nomatter which party affiliation it be.

Double standards, hypocracy, freedom of the press over the law? Is this what type of rights "Patriots" have fought for? If you do not understand how your arguement is 'condoning torture' then why even state your arguements if your just going to be hypocritical about it. That is your problem you think your view is never wrong and your affiliation standings can never be wrong. Labeling me a 'black and white', 'all right or all wrong', and you as a 'gray area', 'middle ground', and you do not see which end the "Torture is ok if it's for the public good/nation security" arguement fits in then you are truly the one "on something". It is YOUR arguement that supports such things, YOUR views. Yet you're full of hypocracy and double standards, keep talking and saying your twists, it only further opens people to your views.

raid517

Again your a mad man like I said. No I do not belive that torture is in the public interest, And yes I do think it is in the public interest to know when your government lies or trys to mislead you. (Although clearly you dont). Simple enough? Got it yet?

GJ

Gabriel_Etranil

Hypocracy and double standards, yeah I got it.

raid517

Mindless, petty, inflextible, intransigent and downright bone headed... I think we all got that too...

I certainly think it is notable how some people on the right only ever seem to see two choices.

Why I wonder could that be?

GJ

Sandok

Leftists and rightists never agree... So stop it. You both have valid and invalid arguments.

Gabriel_Etranil

I'm not going to play your games, if you think that we should let anybody break the law just for political purposes rather then doing the "right thing" and reporting 'legit' then the problem is on you.

raid517

Yes I do think that reporting wrong doing by our governments is important. - no matter what the law may say. In some countries the law says that it is wrong to even print mildly critical articles about the government. But when we see them doing this in other countries, do we consider those laws justified either?

Clearly we do not. So why should it be acceptable in a developed country that claims to be a leading light of democracy and justice such as America?

GJ

Gabriel_Etranil

So you don't think reporting wrong by the press is important(by omition this seems to be your arguement), you get all your information from the press and if the information is incorrect or not legit how can this not be an important issue for you? Your still on talking points and not even reading my 'position', if the government is doing something wrong prove it legitaly, if you break the law to try to prove it or to play politcal games then you have breaken the law, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Your views are bound to never change and this arguementive debate with you is useless. I was trying to show you how extreme your views can be taken, it's your choice to dismiss it but the fact still remains that this philosophy can be also applied to higher crimes.

GL and hopefully your views don't bite you to bad in the future and my 'hypothetical arguments' never come to life.

raid517

They never breathed to begin with.

GJ

OldBuzzard

Raid, you are telling us that if you 'break the law' in order to uncover another crime, then you aren't somehow 'breaking the law'. Sorry, but breaking the law is breaking the law, no matter what 'noble' cause it advances.

raid517

Try telling that to all the lawyers in Nazi Germany. Breaking the law then would prbably have been a good thing. But they didn't do it then either.

GJ

BWX

So you are now comparing the US to nazi Germany? We are a country of laws- yes, some of them are completely stupid, some necessary, but laws- not hitler's whim..

I swear some of the argument's you come up with make absolutely no sense.

And don't bring up slavery either- it doesn't apply to this discussion, this is a specific event you brought up.

Quote:

The end of Free Speech?

Ðamage™

Is this what americans call free speech or for that matter justice and the american way?

June 10th, 2004 – In Colorado, a family’s house was raided by IRS and FBI agents with guns drawn. The family was told it was an IRS investigation and the agents proceeded to ask questions pertaining to religion such as "Are you Shiite or Sunni?" They were also asked about “the leadership of the Sunnis and Shias and which was stronger" and about “Hamas, Hezbollah, and suicide bombings.” Finally, they were asked, “if the US went to war with Iran, which side would you be on?" The family felt the questions were inappropriate for an IRS investigation. Agents removed all personal items with non-English writing, including CDs, and their young daughter’s personal diary.

BWX

Where is the link? Were the (<-- edit theY) US citizens?

Ðamage™

well its the IRS and FBI.. you'd think it would have been in the states unless the IRS and FBI have a thing for raiding homes in different countries..

BWX

I didn't ask where it was- it says that in the first sentence..

And to my first question?

Ðamage™

Google it BWX, I'm sure you can find many stories just like that one.

peace

BWX