Maerj wrote:I'm don't think I agree with you on this one. I usually agree with you for the most part and I certainly don't like the speakers you mention there and I most definitely don't agree with them. But they do have the right to say what they want, here. That is something that I do like and really don't want to see prohibited. Of course, we have the right to not agree with them, to speak out against them or to just totally ignore them.
I don't think anybody has a right to tell homosexuals that they are "filthy pigs" and that "they should die", like Micheal Savage has done. I know free speech is absolute in the US, but I don't agree with that, because speech can have consequences. Do you know how the genocide in Rwanda in the mid-1990's started? It started with a radio station owned by Hutu's which would dehumanize Tsutsi's all day long; saying they were coakroaches which should be eliminated and stuff like that. Historians now point to that mass-propaganda as the starting point for the genocide. Now, obviously I'm not comparing any American radio host to what has happened in Rwanda, but I just wanted to point out which far-reaching consequences 'free speech' can have.
We, in The Netherlands, have a history with it, because of our occupation by the nazi's, who were aided by a tiny but significant group of Dutch collaborators, who started to believe the nazi propaganda about jews. Anti-semitic propaganda films were shown; films which dehumanized people. From time to time, you see or hear groups of people get dehumanized on American radio or tv; mainly homosexuals, muslims and atheists. I don't know one single reason why that should be allowed. I know you can't outlaw somebody's thoughts, but you can keep them from spreading their vile, degrading, hateful propaganda, which could be potentially harmful to others. Just think about the incident where a man was arrested who wanted to blow up a 'liberal' church, because Glenn Beck had told him to. Or what about the shooter who opened fire in a 'liberal' church, because he couldn't get to actual liberals in power? Remember that story? At his house, the police found anti-liberal books by Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter.
I'm not trying to convince you, since we obviously have different opinions on this and that's fine, but I just don't understand why some things are deemed acceptable under the 'free speech'. Rush Limbaugh has said we should kill all liberals on all college campusses, except for two, to remind everybody of the exterminated ideology. Glenn Beck joked on his show about poisining then-Speaker of the House Pelosi. Sarah Palin drew the crosshairs of a rifle over the name of Congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords --who got shot in the head a week or two later! I don't think any of that is free speech, but incitement to hatred and incitement to violence.
I'm glad that's punishable in my country. Right now, even a leading politician is standing trial for his discriminatory and hateful remarks about muslims. I hope this right-wing extremist gets convicted, but everything points to that not happening. Ten years ago he would have been, which happened to a fringe politician nobody cared about back then. But this guy, he's popular. But had he said the same things about jews, that he's now saying about muslims, he would've been in jail a long time ago --and rightfully so! But it seems like in this day and age, you can say whatever you want about a particular group of people...
Oh, I'm sorry, I believe I have let my frustrations about a topic which nobody on this forum could give less about, slip into this thread.
*Edited for typo's.
(interestingly, I was just reading that the word was also once used as a contemptuous term for women, which only reinforces the belief that the hate of homosexuals is tied to the hate of women)
