US 'hate list' DJ to sue Britain

[fukuda 351]

Have you, or anyone else that has replied here?quote>

Yes. I know what's having police officers and troops at every crossroad of the city (literally), curfew on random nights to fight "crime", random tolls put up by the corrupt army, people disappearing and/or having accidents, rampant ultra nationalism and racism (I'm talking about central african dictatorships)... Comparing and equating that to our democratic countries sounds uhm... funny at the very least

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

The UK is not a dictatorship or totalitarian state. That is simply ridiculous and probably comes from the same mentality that the US is slipping into socialism, communism, or fascism (take your pick, they can't decide). quote>

So you say that, the government ownership of large stakes in several of the world's largest banks, a pending majority stake in GM, and a pending takeover of an entire healthcare industry, doesn't qualify as socialism. What would qualify?

Maybe it's not socialism until they actually admit it? Have we reached a point where the people can't see it for themselves?quote>

If it was done under different circumstances, say, when the economy was stable, it could have been described as a Socialist move. However in this crisis, world Governments seem to agree Nationalisation and economic intervention is a 'necessary evil' in order to save the Banks from themselves. When the Economy is stable again, making the Banks Private again seems likely.

 

Communism and fascism are both socialist systems, the argument is over which flavor of socialism we're actually building here. That we're on a socialist drift is no longer in question.

quote>

Its more of a "Lean" than a "Drift". The US is not on an unstoppable road to Marxism like some American seem to think, at the most extreme you may get Socialised Healthcare, but I very much doubt it.

[your_adress_here 11]

To get true Marxist communism, one must first go through a (violent) revolution.

Parentheses added because Marx believed the only revolution towards his idea of communism would have to be violent.

[sneakeypete 16]

Has anyone considered the fact that if he was let in, he'd need some kind of protection from any attacks on himself, due to his views, and the UK doesn't want to foot the bill for that?

To be frank, he's had his chance. If he's going to make inflamintory remarks, then i honestly belive he doesn't have a right to say them at all.

[Randomtaskk 1]

As a question,

What would happen for instance if I (a UK citizen) decided to say the same kind of stuff as this DJ guy? They obv. cant stop me coming to the country, since I'm here already, and I doubt I would be deported - would they lock me up, tell me to stop broadcasting, or do nothing?

In my eyes the government is not doing anything particularly wrong, they havn't told him to stop broadcasting, so he still has his freedom of speech. All they've done is stop him coming here as sneakeypete says, they don't want to end up with the possibility of violence occuring which they then have to pay to deal with.

There are plenty of examples of this from every country, even just within a country (i.e. don't leave the state if your under police investigation, although I'm not 100% sure thats an actual American law or if they just say it for the lulz?) which obv. infinges on 'your human right to move around'.

Edit: As a note I find it amusing that most of the people decrying about this seem to be from America, which has some of the strictest immigration laws/controls afaik/imo. Try telling me you would let someone who was known for inciting Muslim (for instance) extremist violence into your country

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: Randomtaskk

As a question,

What would happen for instance if I (a UK citizen) decided to say the same kind of stuff as this DJ guy? They obv. cant stop me coming to the country, since I'm here already, and I doubt I would be deported - would they lock me up, tell me to stop broadcasting, or do nothing?

You can't be deported if you're a British Citizen

All they've done is stop him coming here as sneakeypete says, they don't want to end up with the possibility of violence occuring which they then have to pay to deal with.

We have laws on violence and police to deal with them.

Edit: As a note I find it amusing that most of the people decrying about this seem to be from America, which has some of the strictest immigration laws/controls afaik/imo. Try telling me you would let someone who was known for inciting Muslim (for instance) extremist violence into your country

quote>

I am BRITISH, I wan't the right to hear this person upheld, I can't go to America to hear him and anyway I don't want to.

We have lots of Muslim extreamists in this country promoting the oposite views, we don't get rid of them. Strangely this particular person had never even applied to come hear, most people had never herd of him, or the other couple of religious zelots also on the list. Now everybody knows of them. I would bet that sales of their books now increases. The government has shot itself in the foot again.

As far fostering Hate is concerned, that's why he is going to sue.

[Randomtaskk 1]

You can still hear him though, without him having to come here i.e. from the internet/book/radio/tv.

I would agree that it is wrong if the goverment blocked you from accesing his material entirely (aka China) but I see nothing wrong with stopping him entering the country.

Yes we have a police force, but what is the point of knowingly giving them even more work to do when they already fail at stopping the existing crime? From a purely pragmatic viewpoint why make extra work for yourself when you don't need to?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

If he's going to make inflamintory remarks, then i honestly belive he doesn't have a right to say them at all.quote>

So, you want it to be illegal for him to voice his opinion.

Tell me, how would you like it if it was illegal for you to voice yours? Because, you know, "you don't have the right"?

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: your_adress_here

To get true Marxist communism, one must first go through a (violent) revolution. quote>

So, what if a Marxist Party was to get Elected to power in a country through a Democratic election? Maybe if they killed all the opposing parties, but that wouldn't be much of an election. The Vote is a powerful tool, a Marxist Revolution isn't necessary in a Democracy unless its corrupt as hell.

Marx only saw violent revoltion as the answer because thats all the masses could do back in the 19th century. Power was held by the Rich, the poor had no chance to rise to high Governmental positions. Only 5 British PM's haven't attended Oxford or Cambridge, and only 2 of those 5 came from relatively normal backgrounds. Its good to remember that Marxist Theory is just that; a Theory. Marx didn't live long enough to see his work in action, if he had done, no doubt he would have made some serious alterations. Thats why I'm all for revision of his texts.

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

If he's going to make inflamintory remarks, then i honestly belive he doesn't have a right to say them at all.quote>

So, you want it to be illegal for him to voice his opinion. 

Tell me, how would you like it if it was illegal for you to voice yours? Because, you know, "you don't have the right"?

quote>

They're not curtailing his right to Free Speech, their curtailing his ability to provoke violence.

 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: El Burro

They're not curtailing his right to Free Speech, their curtailing his ability to provoke violence.quote>

I was addressing the comment that he has no right to say what he said, not the actions of the British government.

And that is curtailing someone's right to free speech, regardless of whether it's also "curtailing the ability to provoke violence", or whatever rationalization/excuse you have for it.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: El Burro

They're not curtailing his right to Free Speech, their curtailing his ability to provoke violence.quote>

. .

And that is curtailing someone's right to free speech, regardless of whether it's also "curtailing the ability to provoke violence", or whatever rationalization/excuse you have for it.

quote>

It's one way to make sure the government is never overthrown.   If anyone says anything criticizing it, just claim it will provoke violence and shut him up.

I know that is not what is happening here.   But it is a slippery slope.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Let's not forget, the communists got into eastern european countries by first winning elections then abusing the process.

The Labour party have done the first already. Slippery Slope

[yamaneko 2]

Sorry, we're not going fascist here in the US, and neither is the UK. The groaning and screaming here in the US is about the highest marginal income tax rate rising from 36% to 40%. FY2009 spending will be around $3.1 trillion (22% of GDP) while Congressional FY2010 federal spending rose to 24% of GDP. During the Reagan years, federal spending was in the low 20s. To this, add about 14-15% of GDP for state and local spending.

Under Reagan's celebrated tax cut, the highest marginal rate fell from 70% to 50%; under his less celebrated 1987 tax simplification and increase, the super-rich got slammed because the capital gains tax was the same as the income tax. Marginal rates at the top fell from 50% to 28%, but the rich get most of their income from interest and capital gains, and that tax went up (Talk about screwing the rich! Most Americans saw their taxes fall but the super-rich saw their tax bills rise by 40%). Going back to the Cold War, Eisenhower and a friendly Republican congress, set top rates that varied from 89% to 94%. Winston Churchill oversaw a maximum income during WWII (100% taxation over a certain level) and George Harrison's "Taxman" complains about the 95% marginal rates then existing in England in the mid-1960s.

There may have been "elections" in Eastern Europe in 1945-1948, but there were also massive purges of whatever politicians were left alive by the Nazis in areas occupied by the Soviet Union; even the Communist Party of Poland was liquidated. What elections took place were shams, and even Czechoslovakia's Communist regime of the mid-1940s was thrown out of office in a 1948 Soviet-sponsored coup. Thus the Cold War.

Even the proposed $3.4 trillion budget (Obama wanted $3.6T, Congress cut $200B from it) is about 24% of GDP; we spent 24.6% of GDP in 1946. This is higher than postwar peacetime norms, hovering around 20%. The US economy is more than banking and automotive, though the first is a conduit for capital and the second is a massive national employer. The TARP funding does involve government ownership of failed institutions, an emergency step to keep them from collapsing and choking off credit last fall. Nationalization was proposed, but rejected.

The stimulus is a $787 billion hit on the budget, split into several components. $288 billion are tax cuts (money remaining in American pockets). $144 billion go to state and local governments to help them balance their budgets. That leaves $355 billion to Federal use. Most of this represents the government purchasing services and goods from private enterprises.

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: Duke87

So, you want it to be illegal for him to voice his opinion.

Tell me, how would you like it if it was illegal for you to voice yours? Because, you know, "you don't have the right"?

quote>

Ah, but i don't go out of may way to purposevly piss someone off, so i'd never have that problem.

I belive that there's always shades of gray. there's no black and white "free speech or not".

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

Originally posted by: Duke87

So, you want it to be illegal for him to voice his opinion.

Tell me, how would you like it if it was illegal for you to voice yours? Because, you know, "you don't have the right"?

quote>

Ah, but i don't go out of may way to purposevly piss someone off, so i'd never have that problem.

I belive that there's always shades of gray. there's no black and white "free speech or not".

quote>

That's just it, Freedom is either Total or Non -existant, there's no such thing as partial freedom. Further more there's no such right as the right not to be pee'd off.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

That's just it, Freedom is either Total or Non -existant, there's no such thing as partial freedom. Further more there's no such right as the right not to be pee'd off.quote>

I agree with you. Your rights are limited only by the rights of others (i.e. non-agression). Also, I may add that, given enough time, a state will progress to a free one or a totalitarian one, due to a gradual drift in either direction, and I believe that most Western countries are in the totalitarian drift.

Sorry, we're not going fascist here in the US, and neither is the UK. The groaning and screaming here in the US is about the highest marginal income tax rate rising from 36% to 40%.quote>

No, the US is not going fascist in that respect. High taxes do not on their own make a fascist state.

It's one way to make sure the government is never overthrown.   If anyone says anything criticizing it, just claim it will provoke violence and shut him up.

I know that is not what is happening here.   But it is a slippery slope.quote>

That is the extreme practical danger of banning what the government considers hate speech, not to mention the equally high theoretical danger.

I was addressing the comment that he has no right to say what he said, not the actions of the British government.

And that is curtailing someone's right to free speech, regardless of whether it's also "curtailing the ability to provoke violence", or whatever rationalization/excuse you have for it.quote>

I agree with that completely.

So, you want it to be illegal for him to voice his opinion. 

Tell me, how would you like it if it was illegal for you to voice yours? Because, you know, "you don't have the right"?quote>

That's the thing with infringement on rights. Half of the country supports it, until it comes and hits them.

They're not curtailing his right to Free Speech, their curtailing his ability to provoke violencequote>

Provoking violence requires freedom of speech, and in my opinion it is not the speech that should be illegal, but the violence itself.

Yes we have a police force, but what is the point of knowingly giving them even more work to do when they already fail at stopping the existing crime? From a purely pragmatic viewpoint why make extra work for yourself when you don't need to?quote>

Hey, why not legalize those currently illegal drugs. That'll give the police more time to work on important things, such as murders and rapes.

Edit: As a note I find it amusing that most of the people decrying about this seem to be from America, which has some of the strictest immigration laws/controls afaik/imo. Try telling me you would let someone who was known for inciting Muslim (for instance) extremist violence into your country quote>

Yes, I would let someone into my country that was promoting Musilim extremist violence. If they actually do commit violent crimes, such as setting off explosives, sabotage, et. al., then he should be deported.

Have you, or anyone else that has replied here?quote>

Yes. I know what's having police officers and troops at every crossroad of the city (literally), curfew on random nights to fight "crime", random tolls put up by the corrupt army, people disappearing and/or having accidents, rampant ultra nationalism and racism (I'm talking about central african dictatorships)... Comparing and equating that to our democratic countries sounds uhm... funny at the very leastquote>

Ah, so you have been in a dictatorship in Central Africa? That is certainly a dictatorship (more specifically a military one), but that is not the one that would be coming to a western country. I would think more Mussolini than Mugabe, for example.

Also, so-called democratic countries are not democratic:  they are republican, but have democratic elections. A slight difference that makes a big impact on attitudes.

[fukuda 351]

but that is not the one that would be coming to a western country.quote>

I wouldn't bet on that, it's not like it never happened....

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

Originally posted by: Duke87

So, you want it to be illegal for him to voice his opinion.

Tell me, how would you like it if it was illegal for you to voice yours? Because, you know, "you don't have the right"?

quote>

Ah, but i don't go out of may way to purposevly piss someone off, so i'd never have that problem.quote>

Neither did millions of Russians, but the Communist government that took over didn't give a damn about that and would kill you just for speaking out.

There is no wiggle room in Duke's question for "I'd never do that so it wouldn't happen to me" rationalizations.  The question was how one would feel about not having the right to free speech, not wether one would say something that would cause them to lose their free speech.  The question assumes that right has already been lost and wants people to consider life under that situation.

It is said that the real test of one's value for free speech is determined by his willingness to tolerate opposing views that fly in the face of everything the other person stands for.  From personal experience, I can agree with this test.  Every spring, a group of "evangelists" come out to the university campus for a week and tell us that we're all godless heathens who are going to burn in hell for our sins unless we repent and dedicate our lives to Christ.  Frankly, it is offensive.  At the same time, the First Amendment says they have the right to free speech, regardless of whether that speech incites anger or offense in the listeners.  Arguments that "they're only inciting violence or causing mass offense" or any other such argument miss the fact that by supporting the restriction of their freedom of speech, the individual is robbing himself of his own right to speak freely.  By attempting to take the right from your fellow citizens, you're weakening your own claim to the same right.  Take it from one and you start taking it from all.

Put very bluntly, if you truly believe in freedom of speech, you will defend the right of your opponent to offer opposing views.  If you're not willing to do this, then you really do not value universal free speech.  Rather, you value it only so far as you can speak freely.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Patricius Maximus 236]

but that is not the one that would be coming to a western country.quote>

I wouldn't bet on that, it's not like it never happened....quote>

Well, I suppose it is possible given a catastrophic event, such as economic collapse or an invasion by foreign powers. However, assuming current trends continue, a military dictatorship would not come to a country in North America or Europe.

It is said that the real test of one's value for free speech is determined by his willingness to tolerate opposing views that fly in the face of everything the other person stands for.  From personal experience, I can agree with this test.  Every spring, a group of "evangelists" come out to the university campus for a week and tell us that we're all godless heathens who are going to burn in hell for our sins unless we repent and dedicate our lives to Christ.  Frankly, it is offensive.  At the same time, the First Amendment says they have the right to free speech, regardless of whether that speech incites anger or offense in the listeners.  Arguments that "they're only inciting violence or causing mass offense" or any other such argument miss the fact that by supporting the restriction of their freedom of speech, the individual is robbing himself of his own right to speak freely.  By attempting to take the right from your fellow citizens, you're weakening your own claim to the same right.  Take it from one and you start taking it from all.

Put very bluntly, if you truly believe in freedom of speech, you will defend the right of your opponent to offer opposing views.  If you're not willing to do this, then you really do not value universal free speech.  Rather, you value it only so far as you can speak freely.quote>

 

[...]like a typical conservative nutcase, he is screaming his head off at an offense that has no real impact on him. quote>

It does have an impact on him: he cannot enter the UK.

[Boggy1 45]

Good. We don't want him here anyway. I couldn't give a rabbit's thistle about his freedom of speech or rights.

[your_adress_here 11]

What an idiot. The British government can do whatever they want about not letting him in. Good for them.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I guess you overlooked the fact he has not been to the UK in over 20 yrs?  Or perhaps you are unaware that he has said he has no plans to go there in the future?  Please explain how he is realisitcally impacted?  Hasn't been there since before many Simtropolis members were infants, and doesn't plan on going there, anyway... so... why the fuss?quote>

It does have an impact on him, because he wanted to go to the UK, but was denied entry for "spreading hatred". Also, if he wanted to enter the UK in the future, he would be denied entry. It did have an impact on him because he was denied entry to the UK when he wanted to enter. I would consider that a realistic impact. Perhaps not in the future, but it definently had a realistic impact on him in the recent past.

Good. We don't want him here anyway. I couldn't give a rabbit's thistle about his freedom of speech or rights.quote>

In all probability, you would give a rabbit's thistle (what ever that is) if it was your rights that were being infringed upon. To borrow a saying from your sig, "Its a primitive human impulse that evolution hasn't quite corrected yet...".

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Good. We don't want him here anyway. I couldn't give a rabbit's thistle about his freedom of speech or rights.quote>

In all probability, you would give a rabbit's thistle (what ever that is) if it was your rights that were being infringed upon. To borrow a saying from your sig, "Its a primitive human impulse that evolution hasn't quite corrected yet...".quote>

Oh right, because they have such an obligation to defend the rights of your lunatics as well as their own. Theorizing on rights is all well and good, but at the end of the day he and every other citizen in practice is free to believe that not every oxygen wasting, rhetoric spewing jackass requires defending to the death.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: Boggy1

Good. We don't want him here anyway. I couldn't give a rabbit's thistle about his freedom of speech or rights.quote>

 It's his freedom of expression and right today, yours tomorrow, or next year, or in ten years time. It's a slippery slope.

Also who's the we because some of us British do wan't him allowed entry. Not because we agree with him but because we agree with freedom of expression and of human rights.

[Boggy1 45]

Funnily enough I don't give a rabbit's thistle about your freedom of expression and rights. Or mine. I just want to be happy, and lead a positive life where I can ideally make a good impact on my community, in peace and sunshine and happiness and flowers and butterflies and all those good things.

I do not have time for people who vehemently wish to destroy my way of life, or anyone elses. I can ignore them; but it's even better if they are shut out entirely. Just makes it easier.

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: hym

It is said that the real test of one's value for free speech is determined by his willingness to tolerate opposing views that fly in the face of everything the other person stands for.

quote>

I belive that there is a great difference between "opposing views that have some kind of reason behind them" and "spouting off to bring up ratings"

Besides, i suppose your greatly opposed to the USA's border control then? From what i've heard, if you live in a middle eastern country that isn't "friendly" (aka, lebanon, iran, jordan etc.), its nigh on impossible to get into the USA for something simple like a holiday. That's just a case of "discriminating against someone who has done no wrong to possibly prevent something bad", just as banning this DJ is. So please, don't use the constitution as an argument for events abroad if its hardly being upheld in its own country.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

It is said that the real test of one's value for free speech is determined by his willingness to tolerate opposing views that fly in the face of everything the other person stands for. quote>

I belive that there is a great difference between "opposing views that have some kind of reason behind them" and "spouting off to bring up ratings"quote>

You may not have to agree with them, or ignore them. You only need to respect their right to state it, just as you have the right to state your objection to his statements.

Besides, i suppose your greatly opposed to the USA's border control then? From what i've heard, if you live in a middle eastern country that isn't "friendly" (aka, lebanon, iran, jordan etc.), its nigh on impossible to get into the USA for something simple like a holiday. That's just a case of "discriminating against someone who has done no wrong to possibly prevent something bad", just as banning this DJ is.quote>

For the record, I am opposed to border control of that variety.

So please, don't use the constitution as an argument for events abroad if its hardly being upheld in its own country.quote>

Who's using the Constitution?

I do not have time for people who vehemently wish to destroy my way of life, or anyone elses. I can ignore them; but it's even better if they are shut out entirely. Just makes it easier.quote>

I'd like to hear you say that when they shut you out.

[fukuda 351]

Who is being shut up here? Visibly not the guy in the article.... He's won a lot more of followers in the UK and his views run rampant in the internet...