Originally posted by whatukno
Thanks to this. If you want freedom of speech it has to apply to everyone, including moronic hate filled [snip] holes.

In fact, when you exclude controversial or impopular speech from protection, there is no freedom of speech at all since only controversial or impopular speech actually needs protection.

Originally posted by whatukno
It includes everything. The news for instance. If there was no freedom of speech in this country there would be no news. Or if there was it would be state sponsored.

The mainstream media is heavily censored and dominated by the same corporate entities that dominate the White House. Freedom of press is a joke. You should know better.

The only exception if the Internet. Unfortunately, steps are already being taken to also limit free speech on the net and thereby destroy the last vestige of intellectual freedom and the only way controversial ideas can reach a large audience.

Originally posted by whatukno
But it exists. You can find it. But the point of this is that there is freedom of speech and it exists, and that is why neo nazi dickheads are able to march freely.

No, they're not. They are allowed to march freely only because they make a fool of themselves and thus actually hurt the cause they claim to represent. If they would actually present themselves in a somewhat likable fashion, there would be far more censorship.

Originally posted by whatukno
The first amendment covers this hate speech. It covers everyone's speech.

No it doesn't. For example, Ernst Zündel was deported from the US en sent to a Canadian jail to eventualle end up in a German jail for no other reason than publishing material disputing the official version of the Holocaust and the nature of the Third Reich. He never even called for violence or hate.

Many people are silenced by the US government or associated lobby groups by means of mere pressure, threats or phoney charges against them. Free speech is an illusion in the US (and even more so in Western-Europe, where government censorship is far more common and explicit)

Originally posted by whatukno
Every idiotic thing that people want to say is allowed in this country.

Legally, yes (thusfar it is). In reality, however, people are pressured in various ways to shut up or they're given a show-trial with phoney charges.

Originally posted by whatukno
You think this is an automatic right? Where does it say that it's an automatic right? It doesn't you have to fight for it, which means court cases.

If speaking your mind can get you into court, there is no free speech.

Originally posted by whatukno
Freedom isn't free and you have to protect your own constitutional rights cause no one else is going to do it for you.

Actually, the government is supposed to...

Originally posted by whatukno
Every idiotic thing that people want to say is allowed in this country.

Legally, yes (thusfar it is). In reality, however, people are pressured in various ways to shut up or they're given a show-trial with phoney charges.

Prove it with examples or it doesn't happen. Don't feed me your skewed idea of what free speech is being oppressed and not give adequate examples.

If speaking your mind can get you into court, there is no free speech.

Yes there is free speech, fact is reporters are willing to go to jail to protect sources for that free speech. If you aren't willing to fight for it, you don't have it.

Actually, the government is supposed to...

Why? Where is it in the constitution that they are obligated to fight for your right to free speech? No, the fact remeins that you must fight for your rights or you don't have them. If your not willing to go to court over your rights than you don't want them.

[edit on 11/19/2009 by whatukno]

Originally posted by whatukno

Legally, yes (thusfar it is). In reality, however, people are pressured in various ways to shut up or they're given a show-trial with phoney charges.

Prove it with examples or it doesn't happen. Don't feed me your skewed idea of what free speech is being oppressed and not give adequate examples.

Take the Zündel case, for example. Zündel was detained by U.S. local police and deported to Canada, where he was detained for two years on a Security Certificate for being a foreign national alleged to be a threat to national security pending a court decision on the validity of the certificate. Once the certificate was upheld and Zündel was determined to be a national security risk he was deported to Germany and tried in the state court of Mannheim on outstanding charges of incitement for Holocaust denial dating from the early 1990s. On February 15, 2007, he was convicted and sentenced to the maximum term of five years in prison.

Why was Zündel a security risk? They believed him to be so because his overall view on Hitler Germany was quite positive and he provided arguments for the claims that the accusations of genocide commited by the Third Reich are largely based on anti-Nazi propaganda. While one may argue against such convictions, the man was commiting no crime according to American law and he was not calling for violence or hatred towards Jews or others. So why the h*** was he treated that way?

Originally posted by whatukno
Yes there is free speech, fact is reporters are willing to go to jail to protect sources for that free speech.

There is a list of topics and viewpoints journalists are not allowed to address in any favorable way. In fact, during the war in Iraq one could see that criticism of that war got on that list and several journalists lost their jobs because they dared to be too critical.

Originally posted by whatukno
Why? Where is it in the constitution that they are obligated to fight for your right to free speech? No, the fact remeins that you must fight for your rights or you don't have them.

If you can't do something without risking a fine or a court sentence, you can't say you're really free to do it. That's like saying you're free to drive 150 km an hour in France because the French court will hear you if they catch you driving that fast (even though there's no chance in **** you can win, unless under very special circumstances).

Originally posted by whatukno
You answered your own question with this guy right here. I'm not going to shed a tear for some douchebag that is wanted in another country.

He was wanted in Germany for publishing material on a website hosted in the US with material punishable by law in Germany but not in the US. He broke no US law and he's by no means ever been a threat to any US citizen. If German law can apply to the content of material on American servers that by itself is an enfringement of the 1st ammendment (and in fact a case of another country being able to punish someone for commiting a thought crime on American soil).

How would you react if the US captured and delived a guy to Iran or China for publishing material on a website that is perfectly legal in the US but illegal in Iran or China? How would you react if an American in Holland was captured and sent to the US for smoking a Joint in Holland because marihuana is illegal in the US? If you would object to this, why is this case any different?

Originally posted by whatukno

There is a list of topics and viewpoints journalists are not allowed to address in any favorable way. In fact, during the war in Iraq one could see that criticism of that war got on that list and several journalists lost their jobs because they dared to be too critical.

Again Wrong. There is nothing that is off limits. Just people's fear of something being too taboo.

You can't seriously believe that? What about eg. Peter Arnett who was fired by MSNBC and National Geographic after he declared in an interview with the Iraqi information ministry that he believed the U.S. strategy of "shock and awe" had failed?

Originally posted by whatukno
Don't give me that, your first example turned out to be someone that was wanted on a crime in an extradition treaty country.

Wanted for a thought crime by means of a website hosted in the US. Don't you see how big a precedent this is and how this is in total violation of the 1st ammendment?

The bpp was brought down by government moles in both the bpp and us organizations. One mole shot at another and both organizations fell. I do see how the gov has infiltrated the white supremicists groups as well yet you do not see the same level of sabotage. All you have to do is look up the declassified cointelpro documents. I can see how the excercising of their first amendment rights hurts these guys positions, and how those trying to bring those views to an intellectual level are targeted. So now a new question, is the gov supporting the blind followers of these orgs who follow the ideology hook line and sinker and ask no questions? Informed people I think would denounce meetings in forests playing dress up in sheets. When I was in the south I befriended a very nice girl who told me her father was invovled in one of these groups and once a year an African would be picked up off the side of the road and disappear, to be lynched in some ceremony. Even the sheriff was in on it. Thank you for your insight so far everyone. Just to re-iterate i've never called for the first ammendment rights of anyone to be silenced, let everyone speak their piece! I was referring to the marches where whether you like it or not they are marching in a public place and spouting hate speech which more often than not leads to violence. For you apologists out there, how would Africans in America marching through your neighborhoods demanding reperations be met? Or American Indians marching demanding their land back? I'm sure there'd be leagues of lawyers outlawing marches of that nature instantly.

Originally posted by whatukno
Your "the Gandhi of the right" was in the US illegally, he was deported to Canada cause his Visa waver expired. Had nothing to do with his political views.

He had followed normal procedure to renew his VISA. He had done nothing wrong whatsoever.

Originally posted by whatukno
As far as Peter Arnett goes, a private company can fire you for whatever reason they feel. A private company is not the US if they don't like what you are saying they can fire you for it, especially if your a reporter.

Considering all the major networks are affiliated with the people who run the US from behind the scenes, it should be clear then that the free press is an illusion.

Originally posted by whatukno
I am not going to claim to know Germany's laws. But the guy was deported from the US for an expired Visa waver.

That was a phoney charge and you know it.

Originally posted by whatukno
But Visa laws aren't about freedom of speech it's about kicking out someone who is here illegally. I fail to see the free speech connection.

Zundel was a man who harmed none and who had lived in the US for many years peacefully. He followed normal procedure to prolong his VISA, but because of his views they no longer granted him a VISA and sent him to a Canadian jail. As such, his first ammendment rights were breached by means of a bypass.

I'd also like to point out that there are currently millions of illegal Mexicans living in the US and actually getting health care benefits. Why are these people (most of them probably never even cared to apply for VISA) tolerated, while a peaceful white man who followed procedure was kicked out only to serve time as a thought criminal.

Originally posted by whatukno
None of this has to do with free speech. It's just a rant on immigration law. There are a lot of people that are deported for expired visas. Doesn't mean it's a political action against their freedom of speech.

If you are unwilling to acknowledge the fact that dissidents are imprisoned or forced out of the country on false pretense or that the media is controlled by proxy in spite of the clear indications thereof, I see no more point in continuing this debate.

Originally posted by whatukno
Thank you, because this is a thread about free speech and not imagined attacks against people politically. A political attack is not an attack against someones right to free speech. Political attacks happen all the time.

Political attacks ARE attacks against free speech as the freedom to hold and express any political view is an essential element of the first ammendment.