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

Cosmo

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.

Eliot Rosewater

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....

Cosmo

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.

Cosmo

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".

Eliot Rosewater

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

It's suppose a start. It's kinda like not associating all Americans with idiots who voted for Bush.

blackredyellow

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?

OutOfBreath

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

FinsburyParkCarrots

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

Cosmo

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/

FinsburyParkCarrots

Cosmo wrote:

...
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/

There's not much in it. The Daily Express pretends to be more upmarket than the worst tabloids, but it's owned by a pornographer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Desmond

FinsburyParkCarrots

I haven't read this thread in detail, but it sounds to me as if, should this "spokesman" be authenticated and Gordon Brown be shown definitely to have made this statement, the PM was likely discussing the damaging result of using a term such as "muslim terrorist" (which echoes that rhetorical Bushite phrase "Islamic fascist", doesn't it?).

Cosmo

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

There's not much in it. The Daily Express pretends to be more upmarket than the worst tabloids, but it's owned by a pornographer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Desmond

...
Well, I'm partial to the 'Weekly World News', myself. They are the FOX News of printed media. And I'm almost certain that it was the main news source (along with the 'Weekly Standard') used by the Bush Administration's Foriegn policy makers as well as their post war strategists. The Weekly World Standard News. I mean, that's about the only logical reasoning one can come up with.

Rushlimbo

Cosmo wrote:

...
Well, I'm partial to the 'Weekly World News', myself. They are the FOX News of printed media.

I love the Batboy stories -- those are classic !

http://design.siu.edu/ad242_final/news_batboy_2.jpg

Cosmo

Rushlimbo wrote:

I love the Batboy stories -- those are classic !

http://design.siu.edu/ad242_final/news_batboy_2.jpg

...
Fair and Balanced reporting... (a.k.a. 'What the Liberal JEW Media' wil not show you).
http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/im-ufo/im-aliens/aliens9.html

bootlegger10

Cosmo wrote:

...
Also... you last points are quite funny... you are basically saying that Conservatives actually benefit from using the term, "N*gg*r".

I would say the people who benefit the most from that word are rappers and black comedians.

bootlegger10

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

I haven't read this thread in detail, but it sounds to me as if, should this "spokesman" be authenticated and Gordon Brown be shown definitely to have made this statement, the PM was likely discussing the damaging result of using a term such as "muslim terrorist" (which echoes that rhetorical Bushite phrase "Islamic fascist", doesn't it?).

Why is the truth wrong? They are Muslim terrorists. They are Islamic fascists. Why is this such a terrible thing to say? You cannot separate their Islamic agenda and terrorism. I could see how it might be unfair if the Muslim community was more vocal about their opposition to terrorism, but they aren't.

Cosmo

bootlegger10 wrote:

I would say the people who benefit the most from that word are rappers and black comedians.

...
So... are you saying that Rappers and Black Comedians are Conservatives???
...
Whoda thunk?

Kann

bootlegger10 wrote:

Why is the truth wrong? They are Muslim terrorists. They are Islamic fascists. Why is this such a terrible thing to say? You cannot separate their Islamic agenda and terrorism. I could see how it might be unfair if the Muslim community was more vocal about their opposition to terrorism, but they aren't.

Like said earlier in the thread it is a method to avoid sweeping generalizations which tend to happen a lot in heated debates, which we all witnessed at one point or another.
Also to the threadstarter, would you think your congressman could say in a session "we should pwn these allah lovin' motherfuckers"? You work in public, you obey to public guidelines. And how is britain socialist?

gue_barium

Drew263 wrote:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12172/Brown:+Don't+say+terrorists+are+Muslims


Banning words? Yeah, that SCREAMS freedom.

In other words, to you, "muslim" is associated with "terrorism".


The idea is to prevent good people from being shaded into a definition that doesn't belong to them.

I was taught not to say "nigger". That simple rule served me well. It substantiated decency where there may not have otherwise been.