Oh FFS Europe!

[Peephole]

Originally Posted by WildCat;9008339And over in mainland Europe Italy prosecuted and [URL="http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/10/22/italy-earthquake-scientists-trial.html"

imprisoned for 6 years[/url] 7 scientists who failed to predict a 2009 earthquake. A shining moment for all of Europe! But the US is realy the anti-science place, because some local pol in Texas or Alabama supports creationism, right?

Quote:

This week, a respected biologist was led into a Texas courtroom. He faces no fewer than 68 charges and could end up in jail for the rest of his life. Has the FBI finally caught the anthrax attacker?

No. Thomas Butler merely reported that 30 vials of plague bacteria had gone missing from his laboratory at Texas Tech University in Lubbock. Many of Butler's colleagues believe the justice authorities are making an example of him as part of a wider effort to ensure that scientists take more care with material terrorists might exploit.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ackfiring.html

Why is the US such a fascist anti-science state that viciously persecutes innocent biologists?

[Peephole]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Europe may well be liberal in some ways, but in others they are downright fascist. Like "outlawed groups" (such as Forsane Alizza in France and Islam4UK in the UK) and such.

If only Europe would just drone bomb their muslim extremists. You know, like normal countries do.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Peephole

If only Europe would just drone bomb their muslim extremists. You know, like normal countries do.

What do you mean, if only?

[Peephole]

Irony, always a troubling concept.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by spin0

^ Still avoiding questions, I see. Not a commendable way of conducting a discussion.

Examples of what exactly? Your overtly wide brush? What was your uninformed Iceland thingy example of?

Ah, back to the "no true European country" fallacy.

Originally Posted by spin0

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsane_Alizza
Yep, organizing private combat groups and militias promoting discrimination and racism is illegal in France.

Islam4UK Islamist group banned under terror laws
As had been it's previous incarnations under different names ("Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism and is not a course we take lightly. We are clear that an organisation should not be able to circumvent proscription by simply changing its name.")

Yes, outlawing groups and not just actions. How absolutely fascist!

Originally Posted by spin0

And yet they don't. Besides, I linked two different assessments of freedom of press by two different organisations both of which showed by far mostly European coutries in Top 10 and Top 20.

Is Russia in Europe? Belarus? Isn't the UK imprisoning people for saying mean and rude things on social media and blogs? Is a blogger not a journalist?

Originally Posted by spin0

Yep, that's the way it goes in most of the world, I think. AFAIK even US has some anti-terrorism laws. I've even heard that US has had people imprisoned and tortured on flimsy basis and without trial, and convicted people to life in prison for making a video. But that's offtopic.

That's like saying Rudolph Hess was given life imprisonment for flying an airplane to the UK.

As far as "imprisoning without trial" every country on the planet claims the right to detain enemies captured in a war without trial. In fact it's a violation of the Geneva Conventions to try them merely for being enemy combatants. You know this of course, you just choose to be dishonest. And it's not illegal in the USA to be a member of a terrorist group and no group of any sort is illegal. It's only your actions, what you actually do, that can be illegal.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by WildCat

And it's not illegal in the USA to be a member of a terrorist group and no group of any sort is illegal. It's only your actions, what you actually do, that can be illegal.

Quote:

The US supreme court has upheld a broad-ranging law that allows Americans who offer advice to banned organisations, including legal assistance and information on conflict resolution, to be prosecuted as terrorists.

The case arose out of human rights advice given by a California group to Kurdish and Tamil organisations that are listed as terrorist groups in the US.

The supreme court upheld the Obama administration's argument that even advice intended to be used for peaceful purposes amounted to "material support" for terrorism.

That includes a lawyer submitting a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a banned group or helping a proscribed organisation to petition international bodies to bring an end to a violent conflict.

"The supreme court has ruled that human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists," said David Cole, a Georgetown university law professor who argued the case before the court.

"In the name of fighting terrorism, the court has said that the first amendment [on free speech] permits congress to make it a crime to work for peace and human rights. That is wrong."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/j...oups-terrorism

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by ZeeGerman

Wrong.
NSDAP results from 1920 -1933

1. Reichstag, 06.06.1920 0,00%
2. Reichstag, 04.05.1924 6,50%
3. Reichstag, 07.12. 1924 3,00%
4. Reichstag, 20.05.1928 2,60%
5. Reichstag, 14.09.1930 18,30%
6. Reichstag, 31.07.1932 37,30%
7. Reichstag, 06.11.1932 33,10%
8. Reichstag, 05.03.1933 43,90%


This thread seems to be a lot of fun. As a European living in the US since 4.5 years, can I switch sides and blame the other side when I see an easy shot?

Zee

I wouldn't call the 1933 election a free one, since Hitler had already assumed dictatorial powers by then.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Peephole

No, but you Americans live under dictators like Raul Castro.

No US citizen lives under Castro, nor any other dictator in the entire existence of the country.

Europe, well it ebbs and flows.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I wouldn't call the 1933 election a free one, since Hitler had already assumed dictatorial powers by then.

Ah, the "not true free election" fallacy

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Peephole

Why is the US such a fascist anti-science state that viciously persecutes innocent biologists?

"Innocent"? He was convicted of illegally exporting plague bacteria, lying to federal agents, and embezzlement of research funds.

I'm pretty sure those are crimes pretty much everywhere. Failing to predict an earthquake? That's pretty unique to Italy, at least so far. Maybe the rest of Europe can follow Italy's shining example!

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Peephole

If only Europe would just drone bomb their muslim extremists. You know, like normal countries do.

We only drone bomb those we are at war with. 99.99% of Muslim extremists have no reason to worry about US drone strikes.

What does Belgium do to their enemies in war? Send them chocolate and beer?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/j...oups-terrorism

The bolded part is partisan hyperbole that has no basis in fact.

The rest of it appears to be the result of your confusion between mere membership or general support and material support. It's only material support of terrorism that is illegal. That means saying "rah rah, go terrorists!" is not illegal. But sending them money or other material support is.

That's how a free society operates.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Ah, the "not true free election" fallacy

Man, you're really stretching now.

I guess that's the best that can be done given how overwhelming the evidence of the erosion of free speech in the UK is.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by WildCat

What does Belgium do to their enemies in war? Send them chocolate and beer?

No, they do something truly horrible: refuse to send them chocolate and beer.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by WildCat

The bolded part is partisan hyperbole that has no basis in fact.

The rest of it appears to be the result of your confusion between mere membership or general support and material support. It's only material support of terrorism that is illegal. That means saying "rah rah, go terrorists!" is not illegal. But sending them money or other material support is.

That's how a free society operates.

Read it again. Material support, in this case, and according to your supreme court, includes giving advice, which is speech, and no matter what the advice is on. The thing that brought this to the supreme court was a group of Americans giving advice on peaceful resistance to groups designated as terrorists by the USA.

[spin0]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Ah, back to the "no true European country" fallacy.

Not at all. Just answer the simple questions.

Originally Posted by WildCat

Yes, outlawing groups and not just actions. How absolutely fascist!

lol, you really DO sound like a regular ANTIFA activist: Never mind what something actually is, it must be absolutely fascism! And at the same time you refuse to provide a definition of what actually would constitute a fascist policy. You'd make Putin Youth proud with your rhetorics.

Anyway, do read the links.

Originally Posted by WildCat

Is Russia in Europe? Belarus?

It is common knowledge that part of Russia and Belarus belong to a continent called Europe. They are not members of European Union, which is a political and economical entity. But I observe that these distinctions are not something you'd readily recognize as your overtly wide brush necessitates you continuously confusing them.

For example this way:

Originally Posted by WildCat

No US citizen lives under Castro, nor any other dictator in the entire existence of the country. [a distinction appears!]

Europe, well it ebbs and flows. [and then suddenly not]

It works like your definition of fascism: it's whatever happens to be convenient at the moment. That's not straight thinking, it's crooked.

Originally Posted by WildCat

Isn't the UK imprisoning people for saying mean and rude things on social media and blogs? Is a blogger not a journalist?

No, I know of many who have said mean and rude things and are not imprisoned for it.

Originally Posted by WildCat

That's like saying Rudolph Hess was given life imprisonment for flying an airplane to the UK.

Doesn't address the fact that the guy got life for making a video:

Quote:

A military jury Monday convicted Osama bin Laden's media secretary of war crimes for creating an al Qaeda recruiting video that prosecutors argued incited suicide bombers.
...
There was no evidence across last week's four-day, no-contest trial that Bahlul, a father of four from Yemen's Red Sea region, ever fired a shot at Americans during his 1999-2001 tenure in Afghanistan.

But the Pentagon argued that Bahlul committed three war crimes by creating a two-hour video that spliced fiery bin Laden speeches with Muslim bloodshed and stock news footage of the aftermath of the October 2000 suicide bombing of the USS Cole.
...
Later, the Cole's commander, retired Navy Cmdr. Kirk S. Lippold, and the father of one of the slain sailors testified about the pain the video has caused.

Perhaps he was "saying mean and rude things" in the video.

Originally Posted by WildCat

As far as "imprisoning without trial" every country on the planet claims the right to detain enemies captured in a war without trial. In fact it's a violation of the Geneva Conventions to try them merely for being enemy combatants. You know this of course, you just choose to be dishonest.

Listen, the world already knows that there were completely innocent people who were not combantants of any sort. So tell me: is detaining innocent people indefinetely without charges or trial not "fascist"?

Originally Posted by WildCat

And it's not illegal in the USA to be a member of a terrorist group and no group of any sort is illegal. It's only your actions, what you actually do, that can be illegal.

Do read Ryokan's post again.

And then there's this: Memo Cites Legal Basis for Killing U.S. Citizens in Al Qaeda

Quote:

Obama administration lawyers have asserted that it would be lawful to kill a United States citizen if “an informed, high-level official” of the government decided that the target was a ranking figure in Al Qaeda who posed “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and if his capture was not feasible, according to a 16-page document made public on Monday.

The unsigned and undated Justice Department “white paper,” obtained by NBC News, is the most detailed analysis yet to come into public view regarding the Obama legal team’s views about the lawfulness of killing, without a trial, an American citizen who executive branch officials decide is an operational leader of Al Qaeda or one of its allies.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by spin0

And then there's this: Memo Cites Legal Basis for Killing U.S. Citizens in Al Qaeda

Huh. Now the Europeans are agreeing with the American far right that Obama is pushing our country towards fascism. Will wonders never cease?

[spin0]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Huh. Now the Europeans are agreeing with the American far right that Obama is pushing our country towards fascism. Will wonders never cease?

Um... maybe you should read what I have written, as I have not made such claim. What I'm more interested in is to probe the hypocrisy and double standards that seems prevalent in this thread: how something is claimed to be "absolutely fascist" and something is not, apparently depending on political (or even geographical?) entity in question. Seems to be very muddy waters indeed as even the simplest questions go unanswered.

What is your definition, what constitutes a fascist policy?


ETA: Just to be clear, I don't see US or EU as fascist entities nor do I believe they'd become fascist in the foreseeable future.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by spin0

Um... maybe you should read what I have written, as I have not made such claim.

I'm partly teasing. But only partly.

Quote:

What is your definition, what constitutes a fascist policy?

I don't have one, because I haven't used the term to describe current policy of anyone (aside from my previous post's teasing). Actually, I think Wildcat's use isn't productive to the discussion. It riles people up, and distracts from the more directly relevant question, getting people to quibble over semantics instead. I suspect he may be doing it in order to tweak people's noses, and I confess to some sympathy in that regard, because there are plenty of European posters whose nose I myself want to tweak when they look down it at the US. But no matter: I'll make fun of them for other things (like their god-awful pop music) instead.

In regards to the actual topic of the thread, Europe simply does not have the same free speech protections that the US has. In practice, some European countries probably have about as much free speech as the US, but as a result of current legislation rather than a constitutional requirement. But some European countries definitely do not, even in practice, offer as much free speech as the US. Europe is, on the whole, more tolerant of speech restrictions than the US, particularly on matters of politics. And some restrictions in some European countries are, in my opinion, indefensible. Calling them fascist may be a step too far, but unfortunately we lack really good terms for unwarranted restrictions on freedom that are short of such extremes.

[Peephole]

Originally Posted by WildCat

No US citizen lives under Castro, nor any other dictator in the entire existence of the country.

No citizen of any other European country lives in Iceland.

Originally Posted by WildCat

"Innocent"? He was convicted of illegally exporting plague bacteria, lying to federal agents, and embezzlement of research funds.

Investigators charged Butler with 69 crimes related to the incident, including lying to them and defrauding his university. Butler was cleared of the most serious charges last December, but was convicted of fraud against Texas Tech and of mislabelling a plague sample he shipped to Tanzania.

Butler's two-year sentence is more lenient than that sought by federal prosecutors, who called for millions of dollars in fines and at least ten years in prison. Butler was told to pay more than $50,000 in fines and restitution. He has already resigned from Texas Tech and paid the university $250,000. Butler has also been stripped of his Texas medical licence. His lawyers plan to appeal.

Scientists have watched the Butler case unfold with dismay. Many believe that the federal government was harsh on Butler to create a public image that it is tough against terrorists. "Butler is going to federal prison, Texas Tech's reputation is in tatters, and no bioterrorism was even committed," says Nobel laureate Peter Agre, a former student of Butler's who is now a biochemist at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. "Everyone has lost," say Agre.

Some researchers say that by making an example out of a 62-year-old, respected researcher the government has undermined its own cause. "This is guaranteed to have a chilling effect on pathogen research," says Steven Block, a biophysicist at Stanford University in California. He cites examples such as that of Harvard University biochemist John Collier, who has said that he threw out his old stocks of anthrax bacteria for fear of running foul of new bioterrorism regulations.

http://www.nature.com/drugdisc/news/...s/428242b.html

But go ahead and continue denying the obvious persecution of your scientists.

Meanwhile in Italy:

It is easy to feel outrage at the jail terms handed down to six Italian seismologists and a civil servant this week. How could anyone hope to have predicted the earthquake that devastated L'Aquila in 2009?

That is the rallying cry, but failure to predict the quake is not, in fact, what the seven men have been convicted of (see "Seismologists found guilty of manslaughter"). The prosecution made it crystal clear all along that their case was about poor risk communication; it was built on an accusation of giving out "inexact, incomplete and contradictory information".

On this charge, there was clearly a case to answer. Employed by Italy's Major Hazards Committee to assess earthquake risks and communicate them to the government and the public, the seismologists got the science right, but left the job of public communication to a civil protection official with no specialist knowledge of seismology. His statement to the press was, to put it mildly, a grossly inaccurate reflection of the situation: "The scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favourable." At this point, the seismologists should have stepped in. But they did not, and the message stuck.

Of course, it is debatable whether this neglect merits a manslaughter conviction and six-year jail term. That is a matter for the Italian justice system. The appeals have already started.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...witchhunt.html

It was never about whether the scientists could or could not predict earthquakes. Even the leader of the 309 Martiri (309 Martyrs) who pressed for the case to be brought said so; Dr. Vincenzo Vittorini, who lost his wife and daughter in the quake, said back when the trial began “Nobody here wants to put science in the dock. We all know that the earthquake could not be predicted, and that evacuation was not an option. All we wanted was clearer information on risks in order to make our choices”.

Dr. Vittorini’s frustration and anger are understandable. The scientists did a horrible job of communicating. In fact, the scientists didn’t communicate at all! Italy’s national Commissione Nazionale dei Grandi Rischi asked the experts to convene after a series of tremors in the seismically active Appenines led a local physics lab technician to predict a big quake (based on radon levels).

The experts met for several hours, discounted the radon-based prediction, and agreed that the tremors could not help predict whether there would be a major quake. The scientists then left town without speaking at all. A local civil defense official who ran the meeting was asked about it by a reporter and casually and inaccurately described the discussions. “The scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favourable.” Dr. Bernardo De Bernardinis, deputy chief of Italy’s Civil Protection Department, added laconically that local citizens should go have a glass of wine. A little over a week later 309 of them were dead.

That is what this trial was all about; the poor risk communication from Dr. De Bernardinis – one of those convicted – and the NON-communication by seismic experts, who would certainly have offered more careful and qualified comments. Did that poor communication cause those tragic deaths and warrant manslaughter convictions? Certainly not directly, as the defense attorneys argued.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...communication/

Originally Posted by WildCat

We only drone bomb those we are at war with. 99.99% of Muslim extremists have no reason to worry about US drone strikes.

What does Belgium do to their enemies in war? Send them chocolate and beer?

We only ban groups that are involved in terrorism. 99.99% of Muslim extremists have no reason to worry about having their little groups banned.

What does the US do to terrorists on its soil? Send them whatever poor excuse you guys have for food?

[DC]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Europe is attempting to integrate itself into a single political body, and it already has a political apparatus that applies to the continent as a whole. Considering them on the basis that they chose is hardly illogical or unfair, any more than it's unfair to consider US politics in total and not simply on an individual state level. But there is no similar attempt to unify the US and Mexico, so the comparison is illogical.

what ?

[Peephole]

Originally Posted by DC

what ?

Sorry, we secretly took over your country. We tried to keep it a secret, but I guess it's out now.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I wouldn't call the 1933 election a free one, since Hitler had already assumed dictatorial powers by then.

Wrong again.

The enabling act came after the March 5th election driven by the fact that the NSDAP had failed to win the absolute majority. So, while the Nazis did a lot to intimidate voters by SA presence and considering the elimination of the communists through the Reichstag Fire Decree a week earlier, the elections were free enough to yield a result that Adolf wasn't happy about.

In any case, you chose to ignore the results of the two 1932 elections which were clearly not rigged. Still want to maintain that the Nazis were a "fringe" group shuffled to power by the shortcomings of the parliamentary system?


Zee

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by ZeeGerman

Wrong again.

The enabling act came after the March 5th election driven by the fact that the NSDAP had failed to win the absolute majority. So, while the Nazis did a lot to intimidate voters by SA presence and considering the elimination of the communists through the Reichstag Fire Decree a week earlier, the elections were free enough to yield a result that Adolf wasn't happy about.

In any case, you chose to ignore the results of the two 1932 elections which were clearly not rigged. Still want to maintain that the Nazis were a "fringe" group shuffled to power by the shortcomings of the parliamentary system?

ZeeGerman meet Wildcat. Expect little logic from WC, and zero recognition of the fact that you have made a point. Just evasion and goalpost-shifting.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally Posted by GlennB

ZeeGerman meet Wildcat. Expect little logic from WC, and zero recognition of the fact that you have made a point. Just evasion and goalpost-shifting.

Oh, I know my way around this forum since 10 years now. Although I don't post a lot, I do quite a bit of reading here. I usually wouldn't post in a dick wagging contest thread like this one, but I think that positions should be challenged when they are based on misrepresenting the facts. Whether WildCat acknowledges the point or not, is secondary to me.

Zee

[DC]

Originally Posted by Peephole

Sorry, we secretly took over your country. We tried to keep it a secret, but I guess it's out now.

when we can get fritten and peppersteak like in Belgium im all for it

[spin0]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'm partly teasing. But only partly.

Ah, "teasing".

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I don't have one, because I haven't used the term to describe current policy of anyone (aside from my previous post's teasing). Actually, I think Wildcat's use isn't productive to the discussion. It riles people up, and distracts from the more directly relevant question, getting people to quibble over semantics instead.

Agreed. It serves only WC's emotional and rethorical needs as a meaningless derogatory epithet, and does not shed any light on the phenomena he's referring to. Not much has changed since Orwell's insights 1944:
"It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

...even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."

Orwell also explained 70 years ago why WC is not willing to provide a definition for his use of the term:

"...Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make."

In the sense of making admissions it's hard to come up with a definition of "absolutely fascist" which wouldn't also hit home with the examples provided ITT.

Conflating the term is even sillier when one reads the OP which is about real fascists as a political and economical agent. It's not about "fascists" or about rhetorics where whichever policy gets emotionally described as "absolutely fascist" (Speeds bumbs? How absolutely fascist! Death penalty? Let them fry!).


Golden Dawn is the real maccoy. They're not "fascists". They're actual fascists without any misuse of the term. That's what makes them dangerous, and why we need to keep an eye on them and their brethen.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I suspect he may be doing it in order to tweak people's noses, and I confess to some sympathy in that regard, because there are plenty of European posters whose nose I myself want to tweak when they look down it at the US.

So... the purpose of your "teasing" is to serve your emotional needs - your nationalistic self-esteem.
Did you know that nationalism is one of the hallmarks of fascism?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

But no matter: I'll make fun of them for other things (like their god-awful pop music) instead.

Man, aren't you in luck - the season is about to start as the Eurovision Song Contest approaches. Thirty-nine countries next May in Malmö, and contestants are currently being selected.

Despite all the hardships Greece gives us something joyously silly, a wonder of balkan-ska mixed with rebetiko: Alcohol Is Free

And as Finland really cannot troll victoriously any more (Lordi is the master), this year we bore people with some bulk pop: Marry Me

It's a contest of having fun together, and waving your little flag while participating to a competition of bad taste. I can't help but love it. Because I remember how it used to be. Not so long ago during the Iron Curtain there was two separate song contests much more serious with symphony orcherstas and all (*. Those days all the silliness was in the Games Without Frontiers.

Some may remember this Games Without Frontiers - Peter Gabriel
"...All without tears, war without tears..." was no joke.


*) ABBA was a game changer, and seems that Sweden has been up to it again.


kk, back to topic.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

In regards to the actual topic of the thread, Europe simply does not have the same free speech protections that the US has. In practice, some European countries probably have about as much free speech as the US, but as a result of current legislation rather than a constitutional requirement. But some European countries definitely do not, even in practice, offer as much free speech as the US. Europe is, on the whole, more tolerant of speech restrictions than the US, particularly on matters of politics. And some restrictions in some European countries are, in my opinion, indefensible. Calling them fascist may be a step too far, but unfortunately we lack really good terms for unwarranted restrictions on freedom that are short of such extremes.

Aaaand here we go again with the "Europe". You serious?

I'd take that bunch of misinformed opinion as trolling - or "teasing" as you say - but there exists a non-zero probability that you are being serious as there actually is at least some truth to it. Which is very important to discuss. It is. Yet to get to that the first thing to do is to avoid overtly wide brushes ("Europe") and actually make definitions and distinctions where they exist and where they are relevant to discussion. Don't you agree?

And therefore it's distinction time for you with the "Europe": Are you talking about conventional geographic Europe, or European Union, or EEA, or ECtHR, or something else, because you telling how things are in "Europe" honestly does not say much here.

Meanwhile:

1. You seem to say US has free speech protections in constitution. Well, so do "European" countries.

Though UK is a exception as it doesn't have an actual constitution. I don't know if there exists other countries without a constitution in Europe, so perhaps you can list them if you feel it's relevant to discussion. Generally countries do have free speech protected in their constitutions. Go read them.

2. US legislation actually does restrict free speech. And so do "European" countries.

As an example I'll just lazily quote Wikipedia:

Quote:

In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several common law exceptions including obscenity,[106][107] defamation,[106][107] incitement,[107] incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,[106][107] fighting words,[106] fraud, speech covered by government granted monopoly (copyright), and speech integral to criminal conduct. There are federal criminal law statutory prohibitions covering all the common law exceptions other than defamation, of which there is civil law liability, as well as making false statements (lying) in "matters within the jurisdiction" of the federal government,[108] speech related to information decreed to be related to national security such as military and classified information,[109] false advertising,[107] perjury,[107] privileged communications, trade secrets,[110][111] copyright, and patents. Most states and localities have many identical restrictions, as well as harassment, and time, place and manner restrictions. In addition, in California it is illegal to post a public official’s address or telephone number on the Internet.

And then there's other restrictions like those vaguely set in the Patriot Act, which can lead to life in prison for making a video, or getting targeted with a drone.

3. This post is getting too long while just approaching the interesting part:
What are the actual problems of free speech in "Europe", why are they supported and opposed, and how they compare and do not compare to situation in US. Before that I'd have to elaborate [1.] and [2.]. Not gonna do it, because kinda boring to explain things to obvioulsy disinterested parties as you and WC are.

4. So I'll just quote EU (<- EU, not "Europe") Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is based on European Convention on Human Rights (<-ECHR, not "Europe"):

Quote:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

5. Interesting part is how it is legislated in different countries (again, not "Europe").

6. And anyone is free to file complaints to the highest organs of this imposed "fascism": either European Court of Justice or rather European Court of Human Rights.


IMO especially Point [5.] would very well be relevant and very interesting to discussion in the thread. But it is futile to discuss with a "teasing" person who knows very little about "Europe", or the fundamental rights in the treaties, their application in constitutions and legislations of different countries, the relevant justice in place, and who's motivation for discussion is to "tweak people's noses". (and lol, I'm a *********** Finn - don't give me any ideas about tweaking of noses.)

Besides, I agree with Spain: Holocaust Denial No Crime In Spain

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I'm taking it for granted that threads are in response to the OP, which you rather grandiosely refer to as a "stand against fascism". If you are now saying that you and others disagree with the OP then surely that is the end of the thread.

If I'm parsing your words correctly, you're putting forth the continuation of this thread as evidence that certain posters agree with the OP? Wouldn't it make more sense to support that with something a bit more concrete, such as their actual words? Also, given that you have to keep moving the goalposts around in order to continue arguing with me, wouldn't you agree your own behavior plays an important role in continuing this thread?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

But it isn't. The imperative seems to be Europe-bashing, and it is continuing now. Why not start another thread if you want to have a go at European Holocaust denial laws, because they have no place in a response to an OP bemoaning the fact that fascist parties who are elected democratically get to sit on committees.

I agree there is Europe-bashing in this thread, but there is also US bashing. I don't think it makes very much sense to say one doesn't belong in this thread while turning a blind eye to the other, nor do I think it makes much sense to expect anything from this thread that's rarely found in other threads, such as staying on topic past the first dozen posts. Why the special pleading here?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

If uke2se, Peephole or Arcade 22 started a thread in which to initiate America-bashing, and I read it, then I would argue against them if I thought the substance of their argument was wrong. I wouldn't start thinking up other unrelated criticisms with which to pile on on the US, which is what has happened, re: Europe, on this thread. If you can't see that, then I am sorry I can't help you.

So...you're stating that a thread started to initiate America-bashing should stick to only one criticism of the US? Okay, whatever.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Well, I think you're wrong, and that it's essentially a Godwin-lite to say, "Who opposes certain forms of speech? Fascists!" Fascists tended to support anti-semitism, the European and Israeli laws against Holocaust denial are anti-anti-semitic. I think it would be no more correct to call Europeans and Israelis fascists, which is certainly the implication of WildCat's post about "suppressing other fascists" than it would be fair to call you and WildCat anti-anti-anti-semites.

That's really convoluted. I think it's funny how you're tying yourself in knots just to keep an argument going.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Could you point me to the post where NWO Sentryman reluctantly agrees?

Did I claim he agrees? Go back and read that again and see if you can figure out why asking me for this evidence is nonsensical. A hint: one should prove assertions of fact. One doesn't need to prove what's asserted as opinion or guesswork.

[angrysoba]

I'll start with this bit:

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Did I claim he agrees? Go back and read that again and see if you can figure out why asking me for this evidence is nonsensical. A hint: one should prove assertions of fact. One doesn't need to prove what's asserted as opinion or guesswork.

Your claim:

Quote:

I'll only point out that nobody except the OP said anything different, and I suspect even he would reluctantly agree at this point.

On what basis do you ground your suspicion? If you have no evidence and no basis then it is a bare assertion. Asking for a basis for your what you suspect is not nonsensical. If I said, "I suspect the dinosaurs became extinct because they drank themselves to death." you wouldn't be very impressed with my answer that it's just like, my opinion, man, if you asked for evidence for that opinion.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

If I'm parsing your words correctly, you're putting forth the continuation of this thread as evidence that certain posters agree with the OP?

I think they agree with the motivation of the OP which is to bash Europe. Any old stick will do.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Wouldn't it make more sense to support that with something a bit more concrete, such as their actual words? Also, given that you have to keep moving the goalposts around in order to continue arguing with me, wouldn't you agree your own behavior plays an important role in continuing this thread?



I agree there is Europe-bashing in this thread, but there is also US bashing. I don't think it makes very much sense to say one doesn't belong in this thread while turning a blind eye to the other, nor do I think it makes much sense to expect anything from this thread that's rarely found in other threads, such as staying on topic past the first dozen posts. Why the special pleading here?



So...you're stating that a thread started to initiate America-bashing should stick to only one criticism of the US? Okay, whatever.



That's really convoluted. I think it's funny how you're tying yourself in knots just to keep an argument going.

I'm not interested in keeping an argument going. This argument that we are having was initiated by you. It seems you also want the last word. Well, you're welcome to it because I am not interested in continuing this tedious exchange.

I'll put a smiley face here anyway to show there is no hard feelings:

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

On what basis do you ground your suspicion? If you have no evidence and no basis then it is a bare assertion. Asking for a basis for your what you suspect is not nonsensical. If I said, "I suspect the dinosaurs became extinct because they drank themselves to death." you wouldn't be very impressed with my answer that it's just like, my opinion, man, if you asked for evidence for that opinion.

Which is moving the goalposts again. You didn't ask for the basis of my suspicion, you asked me to find a quote proving it. If you had just asked for the basis, I would have said, "Because he's no longer in this thread arguing to support it."

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I think they agree with the motivation of the OP which is to bash Europe. Any old stick will do.

Possibly. So what? Again, why focus on the Euro-bashing and ignore the US bashing?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I'm not interested in keeping an argument going. This argument that we are having was initiated by you.

Oh, I initiated this argument? You've already forgotten your post #187. You remember, where you compare my words to someone else's and expressed confusion that they're different?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...20#post8960520

Originally Posted by angrysoba

It seems you also want the last word. Well, you're welcome to it because I am not interested in continuing this tedious exchange.

I'll put a smiley face here anyway to show there is no hard feelings:

Well, let's see if this is truly the last word, then.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I wouldn't call the 1933 election a free one, since Hitler had already assumed dictatorial powers by then.

Couldn't just admit you got it wrong?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Couldn't just admit you got it wrong?

[wildrover]No, nay never[/wildrover]

Did we ever get to the bottom of how "Europe" could at the same time suppress right wing extremists and allow them in government and receive criticism for both ?

Could it possibly be that "Europe" isn't homogeneous ?