Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior
1) How do you determine if they are lies?
|
That's what we have courts for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior
2) At what point are you slandering "a people"?
|
When you are telling lies about them, in particular in order to incite people to violence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior
Where is the line drawn? Do I count as an American Indian because 1/16 of my ancestry is American Indian?
|
I think that anyone who identifies with a people can argue that they are being slandered by ugly propaganda. As for the courts, they usually require 'standing' in order to bring a case. In the U.S I am not sure what portion native American comprises 'standing.' I read a book by Barbara Kingsolver about that and if I recall you might well be considered native with 1/16 th ancestry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior
Limiting speech gives what they have to say more power. I am not afraid of what they have to say. Why are you?
|
I think that is a generalisation that may well be false. I think anyone who is a member of a minority and has felt the wrath of a crowd would do well to be afraid of the power of language and inciting propaganda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior
What if Muslims do? Who gets to decide if it is really slander?
|
As I said, the courts in a free society, like Denmark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior
America has the freest speech in the world...so far we have managed to go a long time without a holocaust. Hyperbole much?
|
The Holocaust happened in the lifetime of people in my family. I am sure it seems like ancient history to most people who think history began at their own birth, lol.
Blacks in America were lynched. 'Injuns' were killed. There is prejudice and stereotypes to this day. One cannot simply say, 'oh well -- these are the casualties of free speech'. One can act as a civil society to deal with such things.
'Speech' in a moral society will most likely regulate itself. But if it does not, then I approve of regulating it.
In Europe many countries have laws against Holocaust denial. I for one despise deniers but do not believe it should be made illegal. If however, someone was claiming that Jews were murdering little Christian boys and making matzoh meal out of them, I think that Jews should have recourse to limiting that person's speech in that regard. Because others, if they believed that, might go out and kill Jews in order to 'save' little Christian boys. I have deliberately used this example which has happened in the past in order to show how people can believe some very far-fetched things about others, and act upon those things.
Another example might be what happened at Freddies Clothing Store,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
in radio broadcasts in the month proceeding that event.