Great Britain fines free speech during Olympics

[tigerbob]

Another one bites the dust. Nadja Drygalla, 23, of the German rowing team has been sent home after it was revealed that her boyfriend belongs to a far-right group in Germany. See for yourselves.

This leaves a rather nasty taste in my mouth. Why aren't some of the competitors from the third world who have connections - however tenuous - to dictatorships back home being sent home? Or those who have family associated with far-left groups? In any case, which rule has this woman breached, exactly?

Care to comment, Jil & Val?

I know I'm not Jill or Val, but I thought I'd comment anyway. I understand that far right / anti semite issues are a touchy subject in Germany. However......

If the article from the Mail is all there is to it, I find this simply a staggeringly bad decision. She's been sent home for being in a relationship with someone who's a member of a (presumably, if it has contested elections) legal political party.

Very, very bad decision.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Actually, let me amplify my response. Instead of just "Fuck him" let me add "Fuck you too". He made monkey noises. He made Nazi salutes. He pleaded guilty. And you're trying to find an excuse for him by saying he may have been using an English colloquialism and all the English people around him unfortunately misunderstood????

Your views on free speech are clearly very different to mine. I will defend to my dying breath any person's right to express disagreement on any subject whatsoever, including holding forth on why black people are inferior to whites, or whites are inferior to blacks, or whatever.

But making ape noises? Nazi salutes? Nah. Crosses a line. It's not even speech for chrissakes, much less free speech.

If you want to include that kind of thing under your "Free Speech" banner then you're trivializing what it really stands for, and thereby doing much more damage to the idea of free speech than I am.

--I'm not looking for an excuse for his behavior you ass wanker. But I was discussing possible context that the law did not regard. For instance, calling someone a monkey is not automatically racist.

--Even if the guy is guilty of everything you think he's guilty of, my point is you have to be a tool to fine and punish free speech.

--You want to fine free speech. You don't deserve your free speech. If you think that someone has a right to tell you what you can and can't say then you just don't deserve it. If you want to take that right away from other people, then let's start with you.

--My grandpa was shot by a Nazi you asswipe. If anyone has a gripe against Nazi displays it's me. But I know that we didn't fight against people's rights of speech. We fought against murderous tyrants. That's all there fucking is to it.

--And no I'm not trivializing free speech. Free speech means you take the good with the bad. That's why it's called fucking free speech you dink. Otherwise it's called censored speech. That's not free speech dude.

I believe I've made it perfectly clear what my position regarding free speech is. In case you missed it, it's in the 2rd paragraph of my previous post. We clearly have different views about the definition of the word speech.

However, because I don't agree with you, you think I should have my right to it taken away. That's an interesting position you've got for yourself there. Agree with your position on the one hand....lose my right to free speech on the other. Hmmmm, something seems odd about that.

And it's also interesting that you choose to bring up what Britain fought for in WWII. If you could ask your grandfather whether he died to protect the rights of people to give Nazi salutes, I wonder what he would have said. I'm pretty sure I know what mine would have said.

No. I don't want you to lose free speech (then again in GB you really don't have free speech b/c the government can prosecute you for speech they disagree with). I'm saying that if you don't value your speech then existentially speaking, you don't deserve free speech. Nice try, of twisting it to create some form of artificial irony. And I am saying that if you are willing to rob other people of their free speech (and you are) then yes, you don't deserve your free speech. Otherwise, stop pretending that I'm the gestapo trying to take away your speech rights.

My gramps got shot dethroning the Nazis who ruled at that time. He fought for humanity. Part of that humanity includes freedom of political beliefs. He was fighting that the American ideals of freedom. He was not fighting for oppression (something the Nazis did; something you advocate at least to a certain degree).

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Another one bites the dust. Nadja Drygalla, 23, of the German rowing team has been sent home after it was revealed that her boyfriend belongs to a far-right group in Germany. See for yourselves.

This leaves a rather nasty taste in my mouth. Why aren't some of the competitors from the third world who have connections - however tenuous - to dictatorships back home being sent home? Or those who have family associated with far-left groups? In any case, which rule has this woman breached, exactly?

Care to comment, Jil & Val?

I read the article. There were not enough details given about exactly what she was saying to make any kind of a reader comment. Neo-Nazi could be construed as bad by some if they are adamant holocaust deniers and call sufficient attention to their agendas. It would be inappropriate to use an athlete at the Olympics to proffer such causes, imho, but still, the article was vague at its worst and noncommittal at its best.

But if a person denies the holocaust then he/she could be prosecuted and fined in Tigerbob's thought police world. And they could it in the name of prohibiting "hate speech."

 

[tigerbob]

--I'm not looking for an excuse for his behavior you ass wanker. But I was discussing possible context that the law did not regard. For instance, calling someone a monkey is not automatically racist.

--Even if the guy is guilty of everything you think he's guilty of, my point is you have to be a tool to fine and punish free speech.

--You want to fine free speech. You don't deserve your free speech. If you think that someone has a right to tell you what you can and can't say then you just don't deserve it. If you want to take that right away from other people, then let's start with you.

--My grandpa was shot by a Nazi you asswipe. If anyone has a gripe against Nazi displays it's me. But I know that we didn't fight against people's rights of speech. We fought against murderous tyrants. That's all there fucking is to it.

--And no I'm not trivializing free speech. Free speech means you take the good with the bad. That's why it's called fucking free speech you dink. Otherwise it's called censored speech. That's not free speech dude.

I believe I've made it perfectly clear what my position regarding free speech is. In case you missed it, it's in the 2rd paragraph of my previous post. We clearly have different views about the definition of the word speech.

However, because I don't agree with you, you think I should have my right to it taken away. That's an interesting position you've got for yourself there. Agree with your position on the one hand....lose my right to free speech on the other. Hmmmm, something seems odd about that.

And it's also interesting that you choose to bring up what Britain fought for in WWII. If you could ask your grandfather whether he died to protect the rights of people to give Nazi salutes, I wonder what he would have said. I'm pretty sure I know what mine would have said.

No. I don't want you to lose free speech (then again in GB you really don't have free speech b/c the government can prosecute you for speech they disagree with). I'm saying that if you don't value your speech then existentially speaking, you don't deserve free speech. Nice try, of twisting it to create some form of artificial irony. And I am saying that if you are willing to rob other people of their free speech (and you are) then yes, you don't deserve your free speech. Otherwise, stop pretending that I'm the gestapo trying to take away your speech rights.

My gramps got shot dethroning the Nazis who ruled at that time. He fought for humanity. Part of that humanity includes freedom of political beliefs. He was fighting that the American ideals of freedom. He was not fighting for oppression (something the Nazis did; something you advocate at least to a certain degree).

I'm not pretending you're anything. I honestly do think there's some conflict in your position. I'm fully aware that there's some in mine as well, and also that where black and white become grey are difficult to quantify precisely. I have to rely on my moral compass for such judgements. My compass is clearly different to yours, but I will defend your right to have that position.

My grandpa on my father's side was also killed in the war (tail gunner on a Lanc in 1942 over Holland). My grandfather on my mother's side was killed in the bombing of Liverpool in, I believe, late 1941, along with my mother's 16 year old sister. As a fire chief working the Liverpool docks, my father was nearly killed several times and saw many of his friends killed. My Godmother Alice was a German Jew. She left Germany when she got married in the early 1920s and came to live in London. She lost every member of her family except an Uncle (7 people, including both parents) at Buchenwald I recall her once telling me, when I was very young - the only time she ever really spoke of it to me

Not one of them I would imagine would agree with your position on what was being fought for, inasmuch as the degree to which you believe it extends. However, they would agree with fighting for your right to your opinion, and to express it openly.

I have tried my best to explain (on a message board, where nuances can be lost) the difference I have with your opinion. I don't believe that monkey noises and Nazi salutes have any place in society. Some people seem to believe that if that is my position, then my position must therefore extend further. It doesn't. You brought up the fact that if I didn't see it your way then I must advocate oppression. I'm sorry to hear that you feel that way, but it would appear that your mind is made up. Fair enough.

 

[tigerbob]

Another one bites the dust. Nadja Drygalla, 23, of the German rowing team has been sent home after it was revealed that her boyfriend belongs to a far-right group in Germany. See for yourselves.

This leaves a rather nasty taste in my mouth. Why aren't some of the competitors from the third world who have connections - however tenuous - to dictatorships back home being sent home? Or those who have family associated with far-left groups? In any case, which rule has this woman breached, exactly?

Care to comment, Jil & Val?

I read the article. There were not enough details given about exactly what she was saying to make any kind of a reader comment. Neo-Nazi could be construed as bad by some if they are adamant holocaust deniers and call sufficient attention to their agendas. It would be inappropriate to use an athlete at the Olympics to proffer such causes, imho, but still, the article was vague at its worst and noncommittal at its best.

But if a person denies the holocaust then he/she could be prosecuted and fined in Tigerbob's thought police world. And they could it in the name of prohibiting "hate speech."

Denial of the holocaust is a political position. I have said on several occasions that I will defend anyone's right to speak in support of such a position.

 

[manifold]

Denial of the holocaust is a political position. I have said on several occasions that I will defend anyone's right to speak in support of such a position.

I guess you'd defend it so long as the speaker doesn't use sarcasm eh?

 

[tigerbob]

Denial of the holocaust is a political position. I have said on several occasions that I will defend anyone's right to speak in support of such a position.

I guess you'd defend it so long as the speaker doesn't use sarcasm eh?

I'd defend it even if what the speaker was saying was diametrically opposed to my position. I just see a difference between free speech and making monkey noises.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I read the article. There were not enough details given about exactly what she was saying to make any kind of a reader comment. Neo-Nazi could be construed as bad by some if they are adamant holocaust deniers and call sufficient attention to their agendas. It would be inappropriate to use an athlete at the Olympics to proffer such causes, imho, but still, the article was vague at its worst and noncommittal at its best.

But if a person denies the holocaust then he/she could be prosecuted and fined in Tigerbob's thought police world. And they could it in the name of prohibiting "hate speech."

Denial of the holocaust is a political position. I have said on several occasions that I will defend anyone's right to speak in support of such a position.

It'a also hate speech and "insensitive" and "offensive" to Jews. That's rather convenient that you're willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other. It reeks of hypocrisy too. I understand that your government has brainwashed you into accepting that false duality.

 

[manifold]

Denial of the holocaust is a political position. I have said on several occasions that I will defend anyone's right to speak in support of such a position.

I guess you'd defend it so long as the speaker doesn't use sarcasm eh?

I'd defend it even if what the speaker was saying was diametrically opposed to my position. I just see a difference between free speech and making monkey noises.

So you don't think monkey noises could be used to make a political statement?

Tell me again who was injured by the monkey noises. I'll wait.

 

[tigerbob]

But if a person denies the holocaust then he/she could be prosecuted and fined in Tigerbob's thought police world. And they could it in the name of prohibiting "hate speech."

Denial of the holocaust is a political position. I have said on several occasions that I will defend anyone's right to speak in support of such a position.

It'a also hate speech and "insensitive" and "offensive" to Jews. That's rather convenient that you're willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other. It reeks of hypocrisy too. I understand that your government has brainwashed you into accepting that false duality.

Well, I live in America so it's not my government, and it's my position, not someone else's. And it's only hypocritical given your definition of free speech. I've already told you I don't agree with your definition so I don't see it as hypocritical.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Denial of the holocaust is a political position. I have said on several occasions that I will defend anyone's right to speak in support of such a position.

It'a also hate speech and "insensitive" and "offensive" to Jews. That's rather convenient that you're willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other. It reeks of hypocrisy too. I understand that your government has brainwashed you into accepting that false duality.

Well, I live in America so it's not my government, and it's my position, not someone else's. And it's only hypocritical given your definition of free speech. I've already told you I don't agree with your definition so I don't see it as hypocritical.

It's hypocritical based on the facts of your definition. You want "hateful" and "racist" speech fined. What do you think denying the holocaust is? Yes it's a "political" position but it is also "hateful" and "racist." That you are willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other is total hypocrisy.

 

[tigerbob]

I guess you'd defend it so long as the speaker doesn't use sarcasm eh?

I'd defend it even if what the speaker was saying was diametrically opposed to my position. I just see a difference between free speech and making monkey noises.

So you don't think monkey noises could be used to make a political statement?

Tell me again who was injured by the monkey noises. I'll wait.

No, I don't.

As to the injury question, I have no idea. If you mean physical injury, I haven't seen any reports of that. If you mean emotional injury I suspect many people, in particular the people they were directed towards. That would appear to be the desired result of the action.

I'm sure you now have a follow up question.

 

[tigerbob]

It'a also hate speech and "insensitive" and "offensive" to Jews. That's rather convenient that you're willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other. It reeks of hypocrisy too. I understand that your government has brainwashed you into accepting that false duality.

Well, I live in America so it's not my government, and it's my position, not someone else's. And it's only hypocritical given your definition of free speech. I've already told you I don't agree with your definition so I don't see it as hypocritical.

It's hypocritical based on the facts of your definition. You want "hateful" and "racist" speech fined. What do you think denying the holocaust is? Yes it's a "political" position but it is also "hateful" and "racist." That you are willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other is total hypocrisy.

If you say so.

 

[manifold]

It'a also hate speech and "insensitive" and "offensive" to Jews. That's rather convenient that you're willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other. It reeks of hypocrisy too. I understand that your government has brainwashed you into accepting that false duality.

Well, I live in America so it's not my government, and it's my position, not someone else's. And it's only hypocritical given your definition of free speech. I've already told you I don't agree with your definition so I don't see it as hypocritical.

It's hypocritical based on the facts of your definition. You want "hateful" and "racist" speech fined. What do you think denying the holocaust is? Yes it's a "political" position but it is also "hateful" and "racist." That you are willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other is total hypocrisy.

He'd only support prosecuting someone for denying the holocaust if they did so while giving a nazi salute and scratching their armpit like a monkey. Because that makes all the difference don't you know.

 

[Dr Grump]

Couple to sue over 'anti-Bush T-shirt' arrest - World - www.smh.com.au

USATODAY.com - Woman bounced from Southwest flight for T-shirt

 

[manifold]

I'd defend it even if what the speaker was saying was diametrically opposed to my position. I just see a difference between free speech and making monkey noises.

So you don't think monkey noises could be used to make a political statement?

No, I don't.

You'd be wrong. People did it to GWB.

 

[Dr Grump]

didn't you already do a thread on this...

good for britain

Why do you hate free speech?

I think she hates hate speech. And if you are so into free speech, go yell 'fire' in a theatre....

 

[tigerbob]

Well, I live in America so it's not my government, and it's my position, not someone else's. And it's only hypocritical given your definition of free speech. I've already told you I don't agree with your definition so I don't see it as hypocritical.

It's hypocritical based on the facts of your definition. You want "hateful" and "racist" speech fined. What do you think denying the holocaust is? Yes it's a "political" position but it is also "hateful" and "racist." That you are willing to prosecute one form of hate speech and not the other is total hypocrisy.

He'd only support prosecuting someone for denying the holocaust if they did so while giving a nazi salute and scratching their armpit like a monkey. Because that makes all the difference don't you know.

OK, well if that's where this is going I'll leave you both to it. I've tried to explain the distinction I see reasonably but clearly you're not going to see it, so there's very little point in discussing it further.

 

[del]

didn't you already do a thread on this...

good for britain

Nope...I mentioned another GB case like this in another thread. Likely, what you're thinking. And is it really good for GB? Are you going to pay me for the time you called me a "twit?" $4K please. Are you going to pay it or be a hypocrite?

we're not in great britain

keep it under your hat, jay

 

[Dr Grump]

--I'm not looking for an excuse for his behavior you ass wanker. But I was discussing possible context that the law did not regard. For instance, calling someone a monkey is not automatically racist.

--Even if the guy is guilty of everything you think he's guilty of, my point is you have to be a tool to fine and punish free speech.

--You want to fine free speech. You don't deserve your free speech. If you think that someone has a right to tell you what you can and can't say then you just don't deserve it. If you want to take that right away from other people, then let's start with you.

--My grandpa was shot by a Nazi you asswipe. If anyone has a gripe against Nazi displays it's me. But I know that we didn't fight against people's rights of speech. We fought against murderous tyrants. That's all there fucking is to it.

--And no I'm not trivializing free speech. Free speech means you take the good with the bad. That's why it's called fucking free speech you dink. Otherwise it's called censored speech. That's not free speech dude.

I believe I've made it perfectly clear what my position regarding free speech is. In case you missed it, it's in the 2rd paragraph of my previous post. We clearly have different views about the definition of the word speech.

However, because I don't agree with you, you think I should have my right to it taken away. That's an interesting position you've got for yourself there. Agree with your position on the one hand....lose my right to free speech on the other. Hmmmm, something seems odd about that.

And it's also interesting that you choose to bring up what Britain fought for in WWII. If you could ask your grandfather whether he died to protect the rights of people to give Nazi salutes, I wonder what he would have said. I'm pretty sure I know what mine would have said.

No. I don't want you to lose free speech (then again in GB you really don't have free speech b/c the government can prosecute you for speech they disagree with). I'm saying that if you don't value your speech then existentially speaking, you don't deserve free speech. Nice try, of twisting it to create some form of artificial irony. And I am saying that if you are willing to rob other people of their free speech (and you are) then yes, you don't deserve your free speech. Otherwise, stop pretending that I'm the gestapo trying to take away your speech rights.

My gramps got shot dethroning the Nazis who ruled at that time. He fought for humanity. Part of that humanity includes freedom of political beliefs. He was fighting that the American ideals of freedom. He was not fighting for oppression (something the Nazis did; something you advocate at least to a certain degree).

The US doesn't have total free speech either....

Your grand dad was fighting them over there so he did have to fight them in the US.

As I said in my last, go yell fire in a theatre

I also hear that the US is about to pass a law aimed at the Westboro loons that says you can't protest a funeral of a member of the armed services any more. Gee, does that mean Americans HATE free speech, or that there are some loons out there that will take the mindset of freedom loving folks to the nth degree and abuse what free speech is suposed to all aobut..