View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Matt
Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 961
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
agate Site Admin
Joined: 17 May 2006 Posts: 5694 Location: Oregon
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 961
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I spent hours looking for updates on the situation but could not. I am glad that you found that. Thank you for posting it.
Very depressing |
|
Back to top |
|
|
agate Site Admin
Joined: 17 May 2006 Posts: 5694 Location: Oregon
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do you suppose the Italian government is seeing to it that more news about the Roma situation isn't getting out?
I've heard that suppression of news stories is very common, in all parts of the world. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 961
|
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is more recent
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/worldhotnews/read.php?newsid=30080584
Maybe so, but I really think that the reason is that so many Republicans don't want to hear it because he and Tony Blair are the only leaders of foreign countries that supported junior's decision to invade Iraq.
The news channels risked being labeled as unpatriotic leftist extremists if they pointed out that Berlusconi is a terrible fascist bad guy whoshould not be in power. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 961
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
agate Site Admin
Joined: 17 May 2006 Posts: 5694 Location: Oregon
|
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
The situation in Italy doesn't sound good.
I have to wonder if stifling this Gentilini for 3 years isn't going to do more harm than good, though:
Quote: |
Last month he was convicted by a court in Venice of "inciting racial hatred" and, as a result, will not be allowed to address political rallies for three years.
|
I don't think that kind of muzzling would happen in the US or Canada, for instance.
I guess my concern is that if you use tyrannical tactics (suppression of free speech) to fight tyranny, you're not helping any spirit of openness you might really believe in.... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 961
|
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I used to really believe in freedom of speech, but Canada does have anti hate speach legislation, and it realy does help the government to fight neo-nazi groups like the heritage front...groups that would ike to incite violence against minority groups. So, when I way the pros versus the cons, anti-hate speach legislation wins out for me.
There have already been some pogroms in Italy against the Roma in recent years, so there is a huge risk of inciting violence with his remarks, which could easilly cost lives.
Italian leftist are particularly willing to go along with anti-hate speach legislation because they get sick to their stomachwhen they think of the anisemetc campaign that mussolini is guilty of.
The guy would also be convicted in Canada. Thee was a rabid antisemite and Hoocaust denier teaching in one of Canada's public schools, and parents were incredibly angry, so they reactivated the legilation. Theywere also really ticked when an american Christian group ried to run a newspaper add advocating that all gays should be killed in the name of god. Canadians just don't like to se this stuff, and they don't think that the complete freedom of speech tht is allowed in the US has really gotten Americns as much freedom as Americans think it has.
But, I wil admit that there was a time when it took me a whie to get used to sucha fundamental difference in the two countries views of freedom of speech. I once though that nothin is more important than freedom of speech. I now think it is far more important that racists understand how much they are hated by mainstream Canadan society, and it is important to be able to legalactions against any one who is advcating for violent crimes.
In Toronto, most of us are completely OK with having blacks in our neighborhoods, but we don`t want the heritage front anywhere in Canada. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
agate Site Admin
Joined: 17 May 2006 Posts: 5694 Location: Oregon
|
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe there are too many people moving very freely around in the world now for free speech to be completely free any more.
There need to be some curbs on the increasingly out-of-control people who are either dangerous or on the brink of becoming dangerous.
One curb I'd like to see is more gun control, but I can see how some limits on what people can get away with saying might be essential unless anarchy is going to prevail. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 961
|
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I also really believe in gun control. The right to bear arms ws so that people could overthrow a tyrannical govenment. We are far past the stage where any group of citizens is able to take on the US military. I don`t see any good in guns being legal. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
agate Site Admin
Joined: 17 May 2006 Posts: 5694 Location: Oregon
|
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Re gun control: Another news story about a US shooting that doesn't concern itself with where or how the shooter happened to have a gun:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100224/ap_on_re_us/us_colo_school_shooting
These incidents are so common that it's hard to keep up with them, but this one was just recently.
The reporters probably assume--rightly--that guns are so easy to obtain that including any information about where a shooter got a gun is unnecessary.
Anybody can get one. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 961
|
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow. There are simply too many whackos in the world for it to beresnable to have guns be legal. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 961
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|