[www.thedailybeast.com]

IGNORANCE & CORRUPTION IN ACTION

“Meanwhile, Israel’s parliament is soon to pass a bill outlawing the word Nazi for non-educational purposes. Indeed, any slur against another that invokes the Third Reich could land the speaker in jail for six months with a fine of $29,000. The Israelis are concerned about both the rise of anti-Semitism globally, and the trivialization of the Holocaust—even locally.”

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." -Tacitus.

"The greater the number of laws and enactments, the more thieves and robbers there will be." -Lao-tzu.

"A state is better governed which has but few laws, and those laws strictly observed." -Rene Descartes.

"To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." -Voltaire

Peace and Love..........John

No, it shouldn't.

I'm not into all the thought-police, hate-crime, political correctness that's been forced on us. The psychological stuff is bull-crap. "Emotional harm" - where's the proof? And get rid of those stupid Holocaust Denial laws. The next thing we know they'll be throwing people in jail who others accuse of being 'racist' - back to the days of being called a witch.

Where will it end - when we can't even open our mouths anymore without breaking the law. They already control everything we do; now they (and you know who they are) want to control everything we say

***************

So the writer shows us where he's coming from - no surprise considering it's The Daily Beast -

"We tolerate the fake slip and fall, but we feel absolutely helpless in evaluating whether words and gestures intended to harm actually do cause harm. Jurors are as capable of working through these uncertainties in the area of emotional harms as they are in the realm of physical injury.

Free speech should not stand in the way of common decency. No right should be so freely and recklessly exercised that it becomes an impediment to civil society, making it so that others are made to feel less free, their private space and peace invaded, their sensitivities cruelly trampled upon."

And Who is going to make that subjective call on whether someone's SENSITIVITIES were trampled on? No One Has the Right Not To Be Offended.

I'm sick of these people's mind-set.

I wish I could remember who said it and how it was said and I think it was by one our founding fathers that the purpose of the 1st Amendment was to protect that very small percentage of people who knew the Truth so that they could keep the Truth alive despite the vast majority of brain dead brainwashed FOOLS who are going to object to the Truth because they think that it’s a lie.

If anyone can remember who that was and what they said, I’d appreciate passing that on. I heard Alex Jones talk about this within the last year or so and I’ve searched for it, but I still have not been able to find it.

Peace and Love..........John

LOL - Looks like I answered the wrong question.

"Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?"

"Yes, they should" is my answer.

Not sure what question I was answering when I said, "No, it shouldn't". I guess I'm losing my processing ability

Here's an example of restricting free speech by banning a vile book -

Canada: Students Cheer as University Violates Free Speech

[panampost.com]

"McMaster University administrators in Canada have effectively banned a book they find immoral, and many students support the school’s oppressive decision.

“When we discovered this book and saw its contents,” admitted David Wilkinson, McMaster’s academic provost and vice president, “we took immediate and swift action to indicate a book with this kind of content in it is unacceptable.”

The book — which contains approximately 25 cheers that touch controversial topics such as rape and murder — is part of a long cultural tradition of rhymes with bawdy content. People enjoy singing about taboo subjects, mostly because they know the subjects are taboo. In other words, their participation in reading the book generally involves agreeing with the taboo themes, and disagreeing with a direct interpretation of the text. To read or sing such a book with others is a cultural bonding experience, encompassing their societal values.

But the university does not understand this. Instead, it has suspended students who have read the book, most of which are members of a group called the Redsuits. McMaster has also reprimanded the McMaster Engineering Society, the much larger body of which the Redsuits are a part."

The writer emphatically explains his opinion -

The decision to suspend the group is not only inconsistent with free speech principles, but it shows that the university — as well as the students who support the book ban — is intolerant, exclusive, insensitive, ethnocentric, anti-intellectual, oppressive, moralistic, and power hungry.
They are intolerant and oppressive by condemning what they don’t approve of. They tolerate neither the book, nor the people who read it, and cheer their punishment.

They are exclusive because they preclude anyone who is part of a group that reads the book from fully participating in student life. They are morally exclusive of those who engage in expression they find immoral, singing words they denounce, for example.

They are insensitive, ethnocentric, and anti-intellectual by failing to show any understanding that some people have cultural norms other than their own; many cultures have long held traditions of using bawdy language. Again, such language is often meant to be ironic, in order to support more “wholesome” values. But even when it is sincere, such language is fully protected by free speech principles. It is not, in and of itself, harassing or discriminatory, even if some find it off-putting.

They are moralistic because they decide what is right or wrong. Even though a great university should be a marketplace of ideas where all expression deserves objective consideration, they prefer an environment that decides ahead of time, for everyone, regardless of any moral theory to the contrary, what is good and bad, beautiful and ugly.

They are power hungry because they abuse their institute-given authority to stamp out ideas they disapprove of, rather than encouraging the peaceful power of persuasion."

I'm sorry but Canada is run by a bunch of half-wit wusses. I'd rather die than ever live in that place. "Oh no! Those words are hurting me!"

To elaborate on my last comment, I see being afraid of words as being similar to being afraid of the Illuminati (as David Wilcock pointed out). If you allow it to happen, you're allowing them to win. This system has set up an entire web of fears for you to fall into. Fear is THE downfall of enlightenment.