Home› A Moving Train

Good to see a socialist nation's view on free speech

Drew263Drew263 Birmingham, AL Posts: 602
edited July 2007 in A Moving Train
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/121 ... re+Muslims


Banning words? Yeah, that SCREAMS freedom.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Drew263 wrote:
    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12172/Brown:+Don't+say+terrorists+are+Muslims


    Banning words? Yeah, that SCREAMS freedom.
    ...
    I would file this under the heading; "So What?"
    ...
    I'm not concerned what terms British Parliment decides to use. The impact on my life... Diddly Squat.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    link doesn't work....

    What does socialism have to do with free speech?
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    blackredyellow wrote:
    link doesn't work....

    If you copy and paste it, it does.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    blackredyellow wrote:
    link doesn't work....

    What does socialism have to do with free speech?
    ...
    basic premise:
    "Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word “Muslim” in *connection with the *terrorism crisis."
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Drew263Drew263 Birmingham, AL Posts: 602
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    I would file this under the heading; "So What?"
    ...
    I'm not concerned what terms British Parliment decides to use. The impact on my life... Diddly Squat.

    Here's the point..we're not far behind.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    So the head of the government told members of the government not to use "Muslim" and "War on Terror." I have to say I agree with the second one. But that's beside the point. How is this a violation of free speech? I assume British citizens can still say whatever they want - and members of the British government when not acting in an official manner. I imagine Bush banned "fucking moon-worshiping savages" from official government use. Have our free speech rights been violated? Well, at least in that respect?
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    RainDog wrote:
    So the head of the government told members of the government not to use "Muslim" and "War on Terror." I have to say I agree with the second one. But that's beside the point. How is this a violation of free speech? I assume British citizens can still say whatever they want - and members of the British government when not acting in an official manner. I imagine Bush banned "fucking moon-worshiping savages" from official government use. Have our free speech rights been violated? Well, at least in that respect?

    I agree with you. Now I'm off to enjoy my French fries. Freedom fries, yes, freedom fries that's what I meant!
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • Drew263Drew263 Birmingham, AL Posts: 602
    blackredyellow wrote:
    link doesn't work....

    What does socialism have to do with free speech?

    It does work.

    These types of govt's are prone to this type of action. Banning words which doesn't exactly lend itself to open thought and discussion. So, where does it go from here?

    When will the US start following this trend? I believe I saw recently where the city of NY banned the N-word. I could be wrong, but hypothetically speaking..that is the start. Sure, the N-word is disgusting, but what thought control policies will be implemented next?

    Banning words, Fairness Doctrine..all this shit is an attack on individual freedoms. I can't help but to wonder why liberals don't fight these things more..til I remember two things.

    1. Liberals aren't actually for free thought and discussion.
    2. Things being banned or suppressed are beneficial to liberals.
  • Drew263Drew263 Birmingham, AL Posts: 602
    RainDog wrote:
    So the head of the government told members of the government not to use "Muslim" and "War on Terror." I have to say I agree with the second one. But that's beside the point. How is this a violation of free speech? I assume British citizens can still say whatever they want - and members of the British government when not acting in an official manner. I imagine Bush banned "fucking moon-worshiping savages" from official government use. Have our free speech rights been violated? Well, at least in that respect?

    So we're ok with banning words that our public officials can use now? Wow...

    This world is going to shit.
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    Drew263 wrote:
    So we're ok with banning words that our public officials can use now? Wow...

    This world is going to shit.

    It's part of an attempt to improve community relations. If Brown thinks this will make a difference, why not?
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • RushlimboRushlimbo Posts: 832
    Drew263 wrote:
    It does work.

    These types of govt's are prone to this type of action. Banning words which doesn't exactly lend itself to open thought and discussion. So, where does it go from here?

    When will the US start following this trend? I believe I saw recently where the city of NY banned the N-word. I could be wrong, but hypothetically speaking..that is the start. Sure, the N-word is disgusting, but what thought control policies will be implemented next?

    Banning words, Fairness Doctrine..all this shit is an attack on individual freedoms. I can't help but to wonder why liberals don't fight these things more..til I remember two things.

    1. Liberals aren't actually for free thought and discussion.
    2. Things being banned or suppressed are beneficial to liberals.

    HEHEHE. It's the fault of liberals. Gotcha. Didnt your buddy Bush go out of his way to do this same thing when he kept preaching that Islam is a religion of peace?
    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength
  • RushlimboRushlimbo Posts: 832
    Drew263 wrote:

    1. Liberals aren't actually for free thought and discussion.
    2. Things being banned or suppressed are beneficial to liberals.

    Please give some examples to backup this dribble.
    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength
  • RushlimboRushlimbo Posts: 832
    Did I miss something when I was asleep? Did Britain become a socialist nation overnight as Drew claims? Jesus, I need to pay more attention.
    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    uhhh ... wtf does this have to do with socialism?? ... great to see that right wing types have something to rail upon with all this bad press from this bush fella ...
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    polaris wrote:
    uhhh ... wtf does this have to do with socialism?? ... great to see that right wing types have something to rail upon with all this bad press from this bush fella ...

    I don't get it either but times are real dry for the Bushies so we'll just have to play along.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    Drew263 wrote:
    So we're ok with banning words that our public officials can use now? Wow...

    This world is going to shit.
    Yes, I'm O.K. with requiring our public officials to follow mandated decorums when operating in an official capacity. And you're O.K. with that too, whether you admit it or not.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    Drew263 wrote:
    Banning words, Fairness Doctrine..all this shit is an attack on individual freedoms. I can't help but to wonder why liberals don't fight these things more..til I remember two things.

    1. Liberals aren't actually for free thought and discussion.
    2. Things being banned or suppressed are beneficial to liberals.
    And I tell ya, the cacophonies of conservatives fighting to repeal Bush's "free speech zones" was deafening. Oh, that's right. Slap the word "security" on something and all bets are off.

    But there was that conservative outrage over Ashcroft wanting to cover nude statues. Oh, that's right. That one involved sex, so Ashcroft was really just trying to protect the children. No harm there.

    Well, at least they were pissed at Rumsfeld when he said that we all need to start watching what we say, so as not to embolden the enemy. No? Oh, that's right - the security thing again.

    Damn. This free speech thing is hard. Good thing conservatives got it all protected. Protected. That's what you call something that's locked away from unsavory eyes, right?
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I don't get it either but times are real dry for the Bushies so we'll just have to play along.

    oh ... ok ... :p

    sorry ... continue on then ...
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    Drew263 wrote:
    Here's the point..we're not far behind.
    Well, we may not be far behind on the free speech issue but we're definitely far behind on socialism...
  • BlancheBlanche Posts: 247
    It's not a matter of banning words. I think Brown is trying to prevent stereotyping.

    The ETA, the FLNC, the IRA, Carlos the Jackal... not Muslim.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Drew263 wrote:
    Here's the point..we're not far behind.
    ...
    again... So What?
    I don't care if Wig Wearing pansies in the British Parliment or money grubbing numb-nuts in our Capitol building place Political Correct terms they must adhere to in place... it doesn't mean that Joe Englishdude or I have to follow suit. It is not a LAW.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    Blanche wrote:
    It's not a matter of banning words. I think Brown is trying to prevent stereotyping.

    The ETA, the FLNC, the IRA, Carlos the Jackal... not Muslim.
    stereotypes are silly. people need to realized that not all muslims are terrorists. it's the texas oilmen. they're the terrorists....
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Personally.. i'd like to see a ban on most words in the English dictionary placed on politicians. Anything to get those mother fucking windbags to shut the fuck up and get to work fixing the shit instead.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Drew263 wrote:
    It does work.

    These types of govt's are prone to this type of action. Banning words which doesn't exactly lend itself to open thought and discussion. So, where does it go from here?

    When will the US start following this trend? I believe I saw recently where the city of NY banned the N-word. I could be wrong, but hypothetically speaking..that is the start. Sure, the N-word is disgusting, but what thought control policies will be implemented next?

    Banning words, Fairness Doctrine..all this shit is an attack on individual freedoms. I can't help but to wonder why liberals don't fight these things more..til I remember two things.

    1. Liberals aren't actually for free thought and discussion.
    2. Things being banned or suppressed are beneficial to liberals.
    ...
    You are confusing me, here...
    Socialist Nation (England) places a ban on the use of "Muslim Terrorist" while in Parliment by their politicians.
    New York bans the use of N*gg*r for who? It's citizens?
    ...
    How does THAT make the Socialist nation of England worse than the Democratic Republic of New York???
    ...
    Also... you last points are quite funny... you are basically saying that Conservatives actually benefit from using the term, "N*gg*r".
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    By far the scariest issue regarding free speech in this country is the unchecked power of King George. His complete disregard for the constitution, particularly habeas corpus, likely scares some people from saying what they truly want to say for fear of indefinite imprisonment without legal recourse. We're way ahead of the socialists with regard to taking a shit on free speech.
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    It's suppose a start. It's kinda like not associating all Americans with idiots who voted for Bush.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    Drew263 wrote:
    It does work.

    it doesn't work when I cut and paste it because you put a space in the middle of the word "are"
    Drew263 wrote:
    When will the US start following this trend? I believe I saw recently where the city of NY banned the N-word. I could be wrong, but hypothetically speaking..that is the start. Sure, the N-word is disgusting, but what thought control policies will be implemented next?

    I'm sure that "fuck" and "cocksucker" aren't allowed in parliament or congress either... big deal. And no, NY didn't ban the N-word.

    Drew263 wrote:
    til I remember two things.

    1. Liberals aren't actually for free thought and discussion.

    I got news to break to you... NEITHER side is actually for free thought and discussion (once again my favorite conservative radio trick - attribute a mutually shared negative trait to only liberals).

    Illegal immigration needs addressed, right? As soon as anyone asked the question of what to do with the 12 million illegal immigrants, conservatives ran off screaming "AMNESTY!!!! AMNESTY!!!!" like 3rd graders.... really opened the subject for discussion there...

    Joe Wilson writes an article questioning the cause for war - Let's leak that his wife is a covert CIA agent... that will show him to try to open discussion about it.

    Morse v. Frederick last week... I guess the conservative side of the supreme court thought that restricting free speech was ok, if it mentioned weed and jesus.
    Drew263 wrote:
    2. Things being banned or suppressed are beneficial to liberals.

    Who is banning anything here? really, since book burning, when was the last time that there really was an attempt to ban speech in this country?
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    Ahem.
    Daily Express wrote:
    ...
    The shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations and avoid offending Muslims, adopting a more “consensual” tone than existed under Tony Blair.
    ...
    Mr Brown’s spokesman acknowledged yesterday that ministers had been given specific guidelines to avoid inflammatory language.

    How is this about free speech? A prime minister advising and instructing his ministers on preferred official language use is hardly a strike against free speech. Aimed towards not getting muslim and terrorist too mixed up, as someone also pointed out, in Europe there are lots of non-muslim terror-groups, so no point crucifying one particular group.

    This is official policy stances and presentation of them by a government, a memo or guideline for ministers in that government. Ministers told not to use possibly inflammatory or possibly controversial wording. Whatever will they think of next? :rolleyes:

    Besides, the UK is hardly socialist. At least generally far less so than the rest of Europe.

    Nothing here, move on.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • FinsburyParkCarrotsFinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    It's from the Daily Express.

    From Wikipedia:

    The paper has made such sweeping generalisations about numerous other targets, such as Tony Blair, the Labour Party and self-injurers (the paper published an ill-received editorial under the title "all self-harmers are tiresome attention seekers", in parody of the original asylum seeker heading, claiming that self-injurers are all teenagers who are looking for attention and should not be treated by the NHS). In addition, some of its articles have been considered homophobic, for example, voicing distaste about civil partnerships for gay couples in a December 2004 editorial, and printing an article in 2006 about the BBC show Torchwood with the headline 'It Contains Gay Sex and Bloody Violence, But Never Mind, Let Your Children Watch It, Say BBC'. The programme contained no gay sex (and very infrequent strong violence) and, in the article, the BBC spokesman merely stated that it was up to parents to decide on Torchwood's suitability for their children, just like any other post-watershed show. The editorial in that edition also claimed that same-sex kissing is 'not something that most families would choose to watch'.

    "Non-newsworthy front pages"

    The Daily Express often dedicates its front page to stories that would appear to rotate around several key themes including; house prices, food scares, miracle medical cures and the weather. These front pages are generally not based on a major news story of the day and are often sexed up with spurious headlines with little factual content to follow, for example 'The Secret Killer in our Food' - creating a front page headline about the dangers of hydrogenated vegetable oil in food or 'The Amazing Protein Diet' creating a front page headline about ketosis. Both such medical stories would appear to have been in the public domain in some form for several years making it hard to see how they could be worthy of newspaper front pages. House prices or inheritance tax stories also appear to be extremely popular, e.g.'House Prices to Rise by 50%'.

    Nicknames for the Daily Express include Daily Excess and Daily Sexpress, due to its ownership by Richard Desmond, and also its tendency to print a lot of pictures of attractive young women, especially murder victims, and a lot of sex-related "non-news" stories.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Express
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    It's from the Daily Express.

    From Wikipedia:

    The paper has made such sweeping generalisations about numerous other targets, such as Tony Blair, the Labour Party and self-injurers (the paper published an ill-received editorial under the title "all self-harmers are tiresome attention seekers", in parody of the original asylum seeker heading, claiming that self-injurers are all teenagers who are looking for attention and should not be treated by the NHS). In addition, some of its articles have been considered homophobic, for example, voicing distaste about civil partnerships for gay couples in a December 2004 editorial, and printing an article in 2006 about the BBC show Torchwood with the headline 'It Contains Gay Sex and Bloody Violence, But Never Mind, Let Your Children Watch It, Say BBC'. The programme contained no gay sex (and very infrequent strong violence) and, in the article, the BBC spokesman merely stated that it was up to parents to decide on Torchwood's suitability for their children, just like any other post-watershed show. The editorial in that edition also claimed that same-sex kissing is 'not something that most families would choose to watch'.

    "Non-newsworthy front pages"

    The Daily Express often dedicates its front page to stories that would appear to rotate around several key themes including; house prices, food scares, miracle medical cures and the weather. These front pages are generally not based on a major news story of the day and are often sexed up with spurious headlines with little factual content to follow, for example 'The Secret Killer in our Food' - creating a front page headline about the dangers of hydrogenated vegetable oil in food or 'The Amazing Protein Diet' creating a front page headline about ketosis. Both such medical stories would appear to have been in the public domain in some form for several years making it hard to see how they could be worthy of newspaper front pages. House prices or inheritance tax stories also appear to be extremely popular, e.g.'House Prices to Rise by 50%'.

    Nicknames for the Daily Express include Daily Excess and Daily Sexpress, due to its ownership by Richard Desmond, and also its tendency to print a lot of pictures of attractive young women, especially murder victims, and a lot of sex-related "non-news" stories.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Express
    ...
    So... it is basically a less credible news source than the 'News of The World' or the 'Weekly World News', right?
    http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
    http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.