2005 Jefferson Muzzle Awards

WaldoJ writes "The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression has announced the 'winners' of their annual Jefferson Muzzle awards, given to those individuals or organizations who have abridged individuals' right to free expression. The dubious honor goes to the Department of Homeland Security, The Motion Picture Classification and Rating Administration, the FCC, and NASCAR, among others."

Comments

Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it

[renehollan]

I once had a discussion with my daughter on a public street in Whitby, Ontario about why people have to wait for health care services and can't just pay instead of waiting for the "free" service.

I was threatened with arrest by a police officer for uttering offensive speech.

While the charge may have very well been bogus, the effect was chilling on our subsequent conversation.

My daughter's comment was, "Gee, I can say anything in the U.S. if it was true. When can we go back daddy? I don't want to wait to see a doctor."

Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes to speaking your mind about almost anything, few countries or people have it as good as the people of the United States, even in this post-September 11 world.

This does not appear to be true. According to the Reporters Without Borders organisation, the USA ranks joint 22nd in terms of journalistic freedom. France and Germany, often criticised for their lack of free speech here on Slashdot, rank 19th and 11th, respectively. If you are talking about the USA-controlled areas of Iraq, over a hundred countries have more freedom of speech.

I get annoyed, however, at people, most notably the cults of personalities we call celebrities, who think that they have a right to make their words and comments louder or have them deemed more important than others.

I don't care. What really annoys me is the people that do treat them as more important or more credible than others. And as far as I can tell, most of the USA thinks this way.

Tariq Ramadan

[MC68000]

One of their muzzles concerns Tariq Ramadan. There are two sides to every story, and the article is just a whitewash.

The group that his grandfather founded is the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization that not only spawned offshoots in many countries, but assassinated Anwar Sadat of Egypt for making peace with Israel among other less notorious acts.

There are many allegations of extremist statements such as: Osama Bin Laden was not behind 9/11, 9/11 was an "intervention", the praise of the genocidal Hasan Al-Turabi (the head of the Sudanese government), and more. He was also barred from entering France for suspicion of collaboration with Algerian Islamists.

So to recap, he has close familial ties with the oldest terrorist organization in the mid-east, he has made many extremeist political statements, and he was barred from entry into foreign country not known for being pro-US before. Couple that with the fact that denying someone a visa does not require the same level of proof as convicting someone of a crime, and I would have to say at least that it is not miscarriage of justice to deny this man a visa.

Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it

[renehollan]

Canada offers the government promise of free (i.e. taxpayer-funded) health care.

The current wait for a tonsillectomy is around 80 weeks.

It used to be the case that women in labour in Ontario were denied epidural anasthetic and weren't allowed to pay for it themselves (because it is provided by the government "when necessary"). I don't know if that's still the case.

Many seriously ill patients (particularly cardiac patients) either die before getting to the head of the line for treatment, or are too far gone to benefit from it. There is supposedly some triage that takes place, but an aging population results in there being many "most urgent" cases in line.

It is illegal for a covered Canadian to pay for health services that the government promises to provide, whether they do or not. And, all Canadians can obtain coverage in the province where they reside. However, the application (at least in Ontario) for coverage requires an agreement to live in that province permanently. Many have argued that this is "fair" because transients should not benefit from taxpayer-funded services, except in their "home" province. However, the correct response would be a minumum waiting period, or perhaps paying for service received in a short period before leaving, instead of the opposite extreme: permanent residence. (And, in Ontario, I have verified that this means "forever".)

Not everything is covered, of course, elective surgery being one such item, non-ward hospital accomodations being another: one can pay for an "upgrade" to a semi-private or private room if one is available, and such "upgrades" can be funded by private health insurance -- that's all it can cover for Canadian citizens).

Non-citizens can pay for service, at rates far cheaper than those in, for example, the U.S., and they get to bypass the line in which citizens are forced to queue. There is increasing evidence that many Canadians get to "jump ahead" in line because of the nature of their relationship with their doctor, or their political or social stature. (The government will pay for politicians to get treatment outside Canada: Quebec premier (like a state governer) got cancer treatment in the U.S.) Corruption in the system appears rampant.

It is questionable whether a Canadian can legally leave Canada for service in another country (e.g. the U.S.). While Canadian law does not apply on U.S. soil, once "back home", it isn't clear whether they could be prosecuted for buying health care illegally. To date, this has not happened, likely because it would be the straw that breaks the camel's back when it comes to revolting against the government.

There is a loophole where Canadians resident in one province can travel to another one, and pay for health care (because they are non-resident, and thus not covered, in the second province), and some have been desperate enough to travel across the country to find the shortest lines. Many travel to the U.S.

Personally, I believe that for the state to tax to provide health care, and then deliver less health care to an individual than their proportionate share of taxes dedicated to health care could purchase on the open market, is criminal fraud. If the individual dies as a result, I consider it state-sanctioned murder. I've said so as much on Slashdot before, and have gotten modded down for it. But, don't expect me to shut up about the murderous state of health care in Canada.

Interested parties can Google for "Canadian" and "Health Care" and come to their own conclusions.

Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it

[renehollan]

It should also be noted that Canada is the only country in the world where it is illegal for a citizen to spend one's own money, after taxes, to purchase health services that the government claims to provide.

Every other country with a nationalized health care system has a "two-tier" system, where, if one is not satisfied with the free system, and has the means, one can purchase private care. Interestingly, such countries have lower per-capita health-care costs (approximately 40% of Ontario government tax revenues go toward providing (abysmal) "universal" health care) than Canada, reduced taxes, and this enables all but the poorest to purchase private services (or, more likley, insurance for same).

Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it

[Sylver Dragon]

I think the thing which is usually missed in all of the "US vs. Them" discussions about free speech is that, we're all fucked to some degree. No matter where you go, to which "free" western contry your travel, there will be things which you are not allowed to say.

• US: Threats against the president or other public figures.
• France/Germany: Support for the Nazi ideas
• Canada: From the parent's antecdote, it would seem that questioning the healthcare system is a no-no.
• Spain: Not sure on this one, but I would bet that decrying the reconquista is a no-no.

I'm sure there are a lot more, and with enough time, we could find examples in every country. Sure, we may not agree with certain speech (Nazi's, KKK, Rush Limbaugh) but if we censor any of it, we are just opening the door for the government to ban anything it wants, all it has to do is figure out how to classify the undesierable speech as part of the restricted speech.
Jefferson was right, if you allow any restrictions, you might as well just forego the whole pretense, because you'll get there eventually. The trick to it, which is often ignored, is to make people responsible for their speech. If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, when there was, in fact, no fire and many people are hurt or killed, you should go on trial for malicious negligence and face civil penelties for the injuries caused by your actions.