The beginning of the end of free speech

What are you referring to here? Do you sincerely believe Communism supported the working man? You must be completely unfamiliar with what went on in Communist countries. Do you know how many people died as a consequence of this murderous ideology?

 

Denying the holocaust is seriously ignorant but compounding this ignorance, initiated by Muslims, only worsens human rights and freedoms. As well, when was it ever allowed to criticize Mohammed? That goes back centuries.

 

So you against free speech? Noted.

 

Anyway the Jewish anti holocaust laws started in 1960 show a Muslim law that predates it.

 

Is calling someone a 'Communist' worse than calling them a 'Sexist', 'Racist' or Fascist'?

 

Noted by someone who must have some serious comprehension problems.

 

Whatever, Jewish law started it, proved my point.

 

Long on feelings and short on facts. Typical leftist nonsense.

 

Jews also wanted special treatment to allow Khoser meat in Sweden. Claimed it was antisemetic to stop them carrying out their barbaric acts of slaughter.

 

No 'whatever' at all. You have serious comprehension problems. You claimed I was against free speech when I was arguing for it, and also arguing that the holocaust can be denied by those ignorant to make such a claim. In fact many leftists, and Muslims, do deny the holocaust, which pretty much proves my point.

 

I am not interested in what you think of the law or what it does, facts not your emotions are important.
Jewish Holocaust Law which denies free speech first appeared in 1960 got that?

 

So we have established when the end of free speech in Europe began, with the Jews in 1960.

 

Maybe people are not so interested in preserving free speech.

 

Another example of the attack on free speech, this time the christians.
Polish President Andrzej Duda just announced he will sign a controversial bill making it illegal to accuse Poland of complicity in the Holocaust. The developments in Poland come at the intersection of two troubling trends taking place in many countries -- the upsurge in Holocaust denialism and the political manipulation of the truth for political purposes.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/06/opinions/poland-holocaust-denial-opinion-ghitis/index.html

 

I have watched that video before. From the very beginning McCarthy lies by saying Murrow criticized him for ferreting out communists. But history shows that he did not convict so much as one person for being a commie. Not one person he ever accused was convicted in court for lying under oath when they got jobs from the government (government employees must take an oath before getting a govt job). History also shows that Murrow and Joseph Welch were correct which is why McCarthy was censured, lost his job, and died a drunk.

 

Do you believe freedom of speech should extend to a person being able to publicly say the words "******" "wetback" or any other racial slur? Just curious. I got into a debate with a poster about this a few months ago.

 

That is confused thinking by you. Commies on the left, Nazis on the right, American federalists, the war time Congresses and Presidents of America -- all at one time suppressed "free speech." You have to ask yourself 'why?' and if there is a difference of good and bad when it is done.

I think it is permissible in time of war, for me, because speech that undermines the war effort is not free speech but anti-American speech that wants to kill Americans. Very selective topics -- such as denying the Holocaust -- should not be protected by free speech laws.

The way to deal with the outlandish attacks on Trump and or the Clintons can be dealt with by strengthening criminal libel laws, severely strengthening them.

 

I think it can be said in public, yes, with the understanding that something unpleasant, even physical confrontation, may be the result of it.

Such words cannot be used in the work space or in government buildings that do house the public's business.

 

So being a member of a party is not a crime in the United States. He made his show trials about criminalizing behavior that is protected in the constitution. Now you want to be against communists, sure that is your right. But this guy used the power of the government to suppress people's ability to exercise their constitutional freedoms.



As for the this whole thread, this has been discussed before and noted that the whole issue is the way in which the presenter made their statements. Europeans have different standards of free speech then we do.

 

That is a matter for Swedes to figure out. Swedes also need to figure out if they allow Muslim men to mistreat women vocally and physically.

 

Or Jew men or Christian men in fact any of the Scum Abrahamic religions with their women beating creed.

 

Your avatar is making me hungry. I love chips and salsa.

 

Absolutely.

 

I am going to go eat a cookie.

 

I don't understand any of that either; for instance, 'Paul' who? I only point that out for being one of the reasons there would seem to be a disconnect between us - you're either a religious person or a doggy person, one or the other. Or both? lol