Slashdot Mirror
Shut Up and Play Nice: How the Western World Is Limiting Free Speech
concealment writes "In the face of the violence that frequently results from anti-religious expression, some world leaders seem to be losing their patience with free speech. After a video called 'Innocence of Muslims' appeared on YouTube and sparked violent protests in several Muslim nations last month, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that 'when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others' values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.' It appears that the one thing modern society can no longer tolerate is intolerance. As Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard put it in her recent speech before the United Nations, 'Our tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred.'"
but speech that triggers violent behaviour in religious whackjobs must be curtailed!
Trading our liberties for other imagined benefits will not end well. You cannot crack the door for this beast.
It's okay for these people to burn our Flag, and pictures of our president, and chant Death to America.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Freedom of Speech should NEVER be joined with smashing people up / killing them because they got "offended" by a comment. This is the trouble with politicians, because they are attacking Free Speech by linking the two.
Cracking down on Free Speech also helps politicians cover up the crimes by them and the bankers that bankroll them.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
This is somewhat ironic considering how often these religious fundamentalists promote hate, discrimination and violence against anyone who does not subscribe to their beliefs.
Seems to me that freedom of speech is pretty useless if you can't use it to express your beliefs, or denounce someone else's beliefs.
Religious hate speech can be a two way street; I've heard some not-so-nice things said by them about Jews and Christians.
'Our tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred.'
Oh, and why does religion warrant such protection? If we're going to protect religion from hatred then everything should be protected from hatred. And that is a very slippery slope down the road to Hell paved with such good intentions.
If you don't like the movie, don't watch it. That is how freedom of expression works. People who can't tolerate that should be thrown in jail for their intolerance of intolerance. :) (e.g., it is the actions that matter. Sticks and stones and all that.)
I have no hatred of Islam, or any other religion. I have disdain for many and fervent disagreement with several. Am I not allowed to voice my opinion?
Does Ban Ki-Moon's opinion extend to the hatred expressed and acted upon by followers of a religion who assault and murder those to leave that faith? (Apostasy)
What about the fatwa and decree of death against Salman Rushdie for his publication of The Satanic Verses? Is the call to murder what Ban Ki-Moon is referring to?
No religion is in isolation from the beliefs and practices of those who claim to be adherents. I have several friends who are Muslims, but who aren't violent extremists. They bear no resemblance to the medieval barbarians making the news in South Asia and the Middle East.
Can I simply direct my scorn and derision at the backward practices of those who are attempting to spread their beliefs with violence and sustain them with oppression?
It isn't the religion I have issues with or hatred for, it is the actions of the religious.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Why is the party making a statement (or video) always the one being accused of intolerance, while the recipient who can't tolerate what is being said not accused of the very same thing? I don't get it...
It was just a video. Maybe muslims should just grow up.
Sticks and Stones, people...
This whole concept is stupid. What they're essentially saying is that free speech can only be practiced as long as it doesn't offend anyone.
When in the hell did THAT type of speech ever need protection in the first place? The entire point of having a law in place protecting free speech is to make sure that people CAN say the things that are controversial. If we're just slapping each other on the ass saying how great everyone else is then any laws protecting it are redundant.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I thought the whole "YouTube video sparked violent protests" thing had been thoroughly debunked. Nobody had seen the video in question. The "protests" were actually coordinated terrorist attacks to coincide with 9-11. Forgive me if I'm wrong there.
By all accounts, Innocence of Muslims is worthless tripe. But we cannot permit even this sort of stuff to be censored, because we know it will not stop there. The same groups of people who were rioting over Nakoula's amateurish film were also up in arms about Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, a serious work of literature. And more recently, British broadcaster Channel 4 cancelled a planned public viewing of Tom Holland's Islam: The Untold Story because of "security fears". Holland's work was a serious contribution to the study of Islamic history, and Holland is actually quite respectful of Islam, which he considers a moral advance over the polytheism that preceded it. But since he questioned the canonical story of Muhammad and the official history of Islam's origin (just as Christian scholars have been doing with the Bible and church history for centuries), far too many Muslims simply couldn't abide that.
We cannot, must not, allow the precedent that if you yell loud enough and threaten enough violence that you can silence your opponents.
Appeasement didn't work with the Nazis, why would it work with Islamofascist scum?
-- Ethanol-fueled
crack the door ?
crack the door ??
crack the door ???
David Irving. Dozens of Muslim political prisoners (Tarek Mehanna, most recent - exclusively free speech).
The door has been cracked open long time ago, it's just this time they are coming for you, Martin.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Case-in-point: you cannot even accept the established history of your own country, let alone accept that the motivations driving beliefs 250 years ago might be just slightly different than they are today. Religious people today are decidedly more stupid than religious people of centuries past -- especially when comparing leaders of men to your average trailer-trash. Further, your founding fathers were, by-and-large, not religious -- you go ahead and find one mention of "God" in the US Constitution... I'll wait.
That video WAS NOT the trigger for anything in the Middle East. The video was on YouTube since June or July. What happened was, plain and simple, a TERRORIST ATTACK by Al Qaeda, timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. It has nothing to do with free speech, despite the White House trying to portray it as such, and which they finally, grudgingly admitted.
I never thought I'd say the US was a beacon for anything without feeling embarrassed. But if protecting free speech, even hateful, intolerant, vitriolic speech, is all the US stands for then I'm damn proud to be American.
F.U. to the cowardly countries who can't stand to hear opposing opinions that might upset someone.
So now we have people who are labeling individualism with hate. Orwellianism is happening right now; as we speak.
Trading our liberties for other imagined benefits will not end well. You cannot crack the door for this beast.
Well, being a reader of Slashdot, we're all familiar with that quote. I think more appropriate here is Franklin's "Apology for Printers" that contains many apt gems concerning this news including:
8. That if all Printers were determin'd not to print any thing till they were sure it would offend no body, there would be very little printed.
The first and foremost fear I have is a destruction or suppression of culture. I'm not saying "Innocence of Muslims" is a good film. Of course, I'm not saying "Manos Hands of Fate", "The Room" or "Birdemic" are spectacular films either -- but I own licensed copies of them. I also own several editions of James Joyce's "Ulysses", a book which was banned in many countries when it was written. I will tell you right now that we would be missing major cultural artifacts if those in power had succeeded at eradicating "Ulysses" and its author. Yes, I'm afraid of corrupt politicians, populations that cannot access knowledge, etc. But those are effects that UN officials won't immediately see. Effects that can be immediately felt are people who collect poorly scripted, acted and funded films will no longer have access to "Innocence of Muslims." No one's saying it's a good film -- then again what defines a "good film" is so subjective I wouldn't know a blockbuster if it hit me in the face.
Authors from Franklin to Bradbury knew this and everyone today should know this: you must resist 'trimming' (by anyone's definition of the word) culture to protect it and keep it intact lest every bit of it be an option on the chopping block for whatever fanatic that has the press as a mouthpiece each day.
My work here is dung.
European governments have never embraced the concept of absolute Freedom of Speech. It is a peculiarly (U.S.) American idea, which never caught on, elsewhere. Not even in Canada, as a matter of fact.
It was not just about "freedom of religion" it was also about "freedom from religion."
Peopel never cease to [amaze/annoy/disappoint] me in that they STILL somehow believe that "goodness" can only come from religion. That's nonsense. But that's part of how religion build a false sense of trust which is *ALWAYS* exploited by leadership. Religion is yet another "team affiliation" which creates a sense of Us vs Them.
Most of the founding fathers are 'suspected atheists.' I say suspected because especially back in those days, people in leadership positions who announced themselves as "godless" would immediate lose the trust and faith of the people. If fact, things haven't improved too much since those days. It's all part of an ugly and vicious cycle of expectations. But the fact that your presumption that it was Christians and therefore Christianity which was responsible for creating the constitutional government of the US only serves to prove my point. Was the government of England not ALSO Christian?
There's a difference between banning speech you don't like, and trying to talk people out of it.
The correct response to hateful, bad, wrong speech is good speech.
Let's just preserve everyone's freedom to say it!
Agreed. In fact it's quite important to note that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences if your speech pisses people off. It just means the government can't stop you from speaking just because they don't like what you're saying. That said, the government has been actively (IMHO) violating the first amendment for a while now, the most stark example being the emergence of "Free Speech Zones" when George W. Bush would travel.
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
Of course the problem here is that your right not to be offended might prevent meaningful discourse. If you try to ban what is basically just blasphemy, then you eventually eliminate any meaningful discussion of religious doctrine.
If you can't be a jackass then you can't be a blasphemer and you can't have any freedom of religion.
The right to be offensive is also the right to be something other than a Puritan.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Blatant stupidity should be mocked if the stupid want to impose their nonsensical beliefs on the rest of us.
Middle East violence isn't caused by speech. It's caused by stupid religious people (redundant, I know) wanting to kill anyone who isn't stupid. Then they want to imprison or kill anyone who points out how absurd their fantasies are.
Why on Earth should that be tolerated? We should be striving to eliminate idiocy from the Free world, not encouraging it, and mocking it is a perfectly valid means of exposing it.
Baghdad was the center of scientific progress over a 300-year period, until religion took over. Then a once-great civilization was destroyed, and ignorance and superstition flourished. That is the worse possible outcome, yet some people want to do that very same thing to the rest of the world.
Religion/Stupidity should be ridiculed. There is no place for it in a civilization.
I like this part of the culture. I wish liberals understand that if they have retain the right to insult me, I am retaining the right to respond in a manner suitable for a man.
You are an immature fool. Your "creedo" is fundamental to the very problem that is causing adherents of a certain offshoot of islam to believe they have the right to retaliate to insults, real or percieved, with terminal, capital, effort. You, like they, are children, and developmentally stunted. It takes a man, or woman, of real character, to shrug off insults. Calling you an idiot makes you feel bad for a minute. Responding with terminal violence changes the entire landscape forever. Only an immature fool believes that they should change other people's lives to protect their own petty feelings. Censorship is a foolish, culturally immature feel-good band-aid on what is a much deeper psychological problem. You tell people who you disagree with to shut up and you feel good for a second but you're simply compensating for a much deeper psychological wound you're not willing to deal with. With Islam, its that plus power and control. Its much easier to control a populace by quieting dissent, so you make alternative opinions anti-religious. This is cultural 101, I'm frankly shocked that so many "modern" people are completely unaware of their own complicity in turning the clutural clock back to the middle ages.
Free speech is based on the threat of violence indeed. You know NOTHING about modern American culture. Nothing.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
If you're are so pathetically thin-skinned that someone taunting you leads you to take out your gun to defend your "honor", then you have no honor. You're a cowardly worthless piece of freedom-hating shit.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I agree with OP's principle but am still willing to make some special allowance for Germany. If any circumstance can be called justifying to say that some things shall not be discussed, it's probably theirs.
If any circumstances can be called justifying to say that some things shall not be discussed, then all censorship can be justified eventually; it's just a matter of organizing a sufficient majority of voters/protesters/terrorists.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
If you're prepared to shoot someone over a perceived insult, you are too irresponsible to own a gun. And I say that as a gun-owning, conservative, free-speech advocate.
Anyone who owns and carries a firearm has a responsibility to demonstrate iron-clad self-discipline and sound judgment. Shooting people over insults? Not sound judgement.
No, thinking you have the right to commit violence on another person over words you don't like makes you an idiot, and a savage...
Those didn't originate with Bush. The phrase is strongly associated with campus speech codes.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
it should be a polarizing issue
I find this attitude to be unsettling. The fact that abortion and 'gay rights' happen to be polarizing issues is one of the problems with the American political system. Of course, if the U.S. had more than two parties with clout then this effect probably wouldn't be so damaging. I find it very troubling that an anti-abortion Catholic who believes in a more liberal form of distributive justice would vote Republican because somehow they prioritize the abortion issue above economic issues. Likewise, it angers me to see a homosexual who believes in a more libertarian form of distributive justice vote Democrat because he prioritizes gay marriage over economic issues.
Very rare is there an issue important enough to prioritize over the fundamental economic policies of a candidate. This appeal to morality is usually done by those who have a shaky, at best, understanding of ethics. Distributive justice is an moral issue. It trumps almost any other issue including free speech, which changes from generation to generation depending on how certain judges decide to interpret the U.S. Constitution, but is never wholly endangered. The freedom of speech in the U.S. was enacted by a bunch of cutthroat politicians who libeled one another in publications (often under pseudonyms), slandered one another on the floor of congress, and in general sought to defame one another through lies and rumors. Is it any wonder that the democratic countries that came about after the U.S. were hesitant to have such a broad protection of speech and that none of them do?
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Would you feel the same way if the courts applied 'money is speech' to being able to make contributions to the pirate bay or wikileaks?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.”
-- Robert E. Howard
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
We all know of the dividing line for free speech where you maybe don't allow people to yell "fire" in a crowded theater because it causes panic and someone might get hurt.
Well, if people weren't stupid, they wouldn't panic, and this situation wouldn't arise, right? You could yell "fire" in every crowded theater in the country and people would simply stand up and file out in an orderly fashion and then get annoyed that their movie was interrupted.
But that's not how people work, even in a highly civilized and educated country, so we use the law to help accommodate the ignorant behavior people are prone to.
No one seems willing to admit that maybe there's a corollary here. We know full well that some ignorant people will do bad things when you yell "Allah rapes babies in the name of Muhammad" and put it all over the internet. Does that mean people shouldn't be allowed to do so?
I don't know. It's a slippery slope. But maybe even free speech purists like myself need to look at the fact that we don't live in a perfect world where everyone can be expected to behave rationally, and we need to make adjustments for that fact.
Damn, I didn't know that the Unabomber's cabin just got internet access.
And that's limited to Muslim extremism in what way exactly? How are they even more laughable and pitiful than the dimwits that seriously claim the world's some 6,000 years old and that Adam and Eve frolicked amongst dinosaurs under the watchful eye of a bearded guy on a fluffy cloud who first of all created the universe in less than a week?
You really think the virgin thing is supposed to cause a bigger giggle fit in me than that bull?
Religious extremism is a disease. In all its forms. Don't get me wrong, if you want to live in a makebelieve world, by all means, be free to do it. Just keep it away from impressionable children and most of all out of laws that may affect me. I prefer education and legal system to be rooted in reality.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
> they STILL somehow believe that "goodness" can only come from religion. That's nonsense.
Have you ever considered, though, that for some people that is the truth though? That maybe these are people whose only motivation for good comes from religion and therefore cannot understand those who don't need religion to be decent?
People who need religion to be decent are not decent. You are not a moral person if the reason that you behave that way is because you fear the repercussions if you don't.
Indeed, there's an oddly fundamentalist note to setting up any political principle as an absolute.
It's a peculiar quality that the United States has of having, on one hand, an abundance of sacred absolutes (right to bear arms, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion; all wonderful things), but on the other hand living within a highly-militarized police state. I wonder if all this talk of sacred absolutes hasn't proven useful as a kind of smoke screen to let politicians and big business set themselves up with judicial and extrajudicial powers that quite effectively bypass these same absolutes.
There's nothing quite like the love of rhetoric for derailing reasonable discussion. Political absolutes make ideal fuel for rhetoric. It's much easier to reach for an absolute than it is to reflectively ask, "Oh, what is it about this particular situation that is problematic, and what shall we do about it?" If, in fact, we must learn to navigate through various shades of grey, then let's admit that and get on with the work. In Canada, for example, we have laws that restrict hate speech. They were written in response to a particular situation. They do not address absolutes. They're probably flawed, and we'll discover those flaws as we encounter edge cases. It's all a bit grey, but does that mean that Canada is thereby at risk of becoming a police state? Hardly. The main movement in Canada toward bigger prisons, harsher jail sentences, and less funding of science by government is coming from - guess who? - the fundamentalists.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
If the only reason for you to do good deeds are because of a fear of God/the devil, or a need to please God/the church. Then you are not a good person.
A good person does good deeds for the sake of doing good, or to improve society as a whole.
People doing good things in God's name are being dishonest and selfish. People doing good without religion are truly good people.
As for what "chrisitan ideals" are... if you'd ever read the bible you'd know how full of hate and immorality those "ideals" really are. picking and choosing only the "good" from a book espousing the common beliefs of people thousands of years ago does not give you the moral high ground to claim that nobody else could come up with those same "good" things without secretly believing the same thing. Worse yet, when they leave out all the bad parts of the morality listed in the bible you still take credit for it as if it stemmed from a religious text that is far more immoral than what the later group follows. Cristians do not have an eternal patent on morality, there is much prior art, and anyone looking at a truly moral culture would see that it is a completely different work than that found in any cristian literature.
My morality has no basis whatsoever in any religion. My moral code is derived 100% from what form of society I want to live in with the theory that I should act the way I want all people to act. I believe it is immoral to murder, cheat, steal, rape, discriminate in any way, etc. I volunteer hundreds of hours a year to various non-profit and charitable organizations. I don't drink/smoke/swear. and yet my lack of religion causes people to claim that I must be a bad person because I could not possibly have morals. This coming from someone who judges a person soley by what imaginary creature they worship?
If that someone else has shot first, or is even waving a gun threateningly at you, then it is a defensive action.
You can't seriously be that stupid. If someone breaks into your house and is threatening you with a gun, and you shoot him, that's a gun protecting you. And there's a million other examples of a gun protecting you.
Or what if you happen to shoot the asshole that's shooting at you stopping the bullets from coming out of his gun. You logic is so bad it makes me wonder how you even dress yourself in the morning.
No one has ever before mistaken the framers of the US Constitution for fundamentalists. They considered these liberties to be the natural rights of man, not dependent upon any religious belief, and, yes, they considered those rights to be absolute. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, despise the philosophical naturalism from which the rights of man are derived; they consider such irreligious philosophy "secular humanism". Fundamentalists would gladly discard the Rights of Man in favor of the Law of God.
No, thinking you have the right to commit violence on another person over words you don't like makes you an idiot, and a savage...
I don't know. Some guy with a knife saying "I'm going to gut you, then rape your wife and daughter."?
I wouldn't like those words.
And yeah, I'd do violence unto someone saying those things to me.
It's REALLY easy to lay out a generalization.
Where most people get into trouble is in dealing with the specifics.
This is one of the reason blanket "zero tolerance" type policies are so damned stupid.
Basically things like this relieve people of the obligation to be both involved and proactive. Then they can scoot by on minimal effort being reflexive and reactionary with all sorts of travesties taking place.
Case in point.
Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger, current Pope) was a member of the Hitler Youth.
This makes him evil right?
WRONG.
Membership in the Hitler Youth, in 1941, was compulsory. It was required by German law.
Little Joe had exactly ZERO say in it. He wasn't an enthusiastic member, and by all accounts, never attended meetings.
He was later conscripted, right out of seminary, as a child soldier by the German Army. And did he fight for them?
Nope. When the allies drew near his station, he took the opportunity to desert.
But nowadays, we live in the world of the sound byte and the thought-free "fact".
It's just easier for assorted mental defectives to regurgitate simple bullet points to support their idiocies, without having to actually think their way through various exceptions.
Never mind that SPECIFIC information can result in a complete change of context.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
As an Austrian; thank you for bringing this up. People from other countries are often confused or concerned about this law, so I'd like to clear a few things up. The situation is very similar in Germany, but since I'm an Austrian, and you specifically mentioned the Irving trial, I'll concentrate on that.
The Verbotsgesetz is indeed an intentional limitation on free speech. As far as I know, this is the only major difference to what is considered free speech in the US, although we may be a bit stricter concerning incitement of popular hatred against ethnic groups. Both the Verbotsgesetz and the right to free speech are part of the Austrian constitution. To understand why we have this law, and why such an obvious limitation on what we can say or publish is tolerated by the people, you need to take a look at when and why the law was instated.
The first version became law on May 8, 1945 - the very day that WWII ended in Europe with the capitulation of the Wehrmacht. Its main and largest part deals with the process of "denazification," which was an acute necessity in order to resume normal life after the war. It was also mandated by the allied forces, who continued to occupy Austria for the next ten years. This part is now dead law, because the denazification is as complete as it's ever going to be, and also because there was an amnesty for former members of the NSDAP in 1957.
The second part of the law forbids the reformation of the NSDAP and certain organizations associated with it (like the SS, SA, etc). It also - and here's where the interesting part comes in - made national-socialist activities illegal. This includes any action which "denies, belittles, condones or tries to justify the Nazi genocide or other Nazi crimes against humanity".
I'm sure you will understand why such a law was considered necessary immediately after the war. So why didn't we repeal it later? The main reason for that was to send a strong public signal that this era is once and for all over. During the time of the Third Reich, there was a significant brain drain in Germany and Austria. Many of the most important scientific minds, as well as writers, artists, lawyers, doctors, etc, were Jewish and were forced to emigrate. It was of great importance to prove to those people that it was safe to return.
Which leaves the question: how long should this law, as a special case due to historic necessity, remain in force? This point is actually debated regularly, but unfortunately the only people who are publicly advocating to repeal it are from the extreme right. They're not at all concerned about freedom of speech in general, they just want to avoid fines and prison terms after their typical antisemitic tirades. As a result, they are consistently voted down. As for me.. as long as there are Holocaust survivors living in this country, I wouldn't want the law repealed. At some point in the future, it would probably be best to put it behind us and let the normal laws handle these cases.
By the way, this Innocence of Muslims video (idiotic as it is) would not have violated any Austrian law. There's no need to be afraid about speaking your mind in Austria, as long as you don't publicly deny or condone the Nazi war crimes. Irving knew that perfectly well. He knowingly violated the Verbotsgesetz multiple times, and as a result he had to spend 13 months in prison. It was a stupid thing to do, and it appears he has learned his lesson.
CJ
Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
Ahh, the bliss of ignorance. You do understand the social solutions to problems have existed very intentionally for thousands of years correct? Why would that be? Why would Socrates and Plato say those things are needed for a successful Republic?
The courts don't have time, nor is it possible to legislate social behavior all of the time. Society does have the time, and is the "normal". Does this mean that I advocate dueling or shooting someone when out of line socially? No, that would be illegal. But a punch in the mouth goes a long way in reminding someone about social behavior. And long ago, but not that long ago, courts would be extremely lenient on assault cases where a person was convicted of assaulting someone that spit on an old lady or cussed out a waitress that was not happy with their verbal sexual advances (and sometimes just toss out the case).
A fat lip goes a long way toward getting an apology and different behavior from someone acting out of the societal normal. It is not always the answer and should not be the "normal", but in some cases it's the best form of justice.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Free speech is based on the threat of violence indeed. You know NOTHING about modern American culture. Nothing.
Define "American" culture.
In the South, um....actually, yes, the politeness is due to the threat of violence. I'm from north Alabama and in my culture you don't run your mouth to people and act like a complete asshole (for long) because you will get popped in the mouth sooner or later. I have been to other parts of the country (living in Michigan now) and I've seen and heard things go down as commonplace that would have somebody outright get the shit kicked out of them if they said it to somebody where I'm from.
I recently read a book whose name and author escapes me but it actually explained this phenomenon quite well. It described how my part of the country was mostly settled by Scots (I'm about half-Scot myself) who are largely a herding culture, which the theory indicates vary from agricultural cultures in significant ways.
There was a study conducted which analyzed how southerners and northerners responded to insults, and aggravating/annoying people, etc. Basically they found that northerners are quick to make a wisecrack to the annoying person or to roll their eyes, etc. When insulted they tend to shrug it off or deflect it, not showing outward signs of stress and not acting aggressively, but in reality the insult did add to their stress levels.
Southerners on the other hand were very polite up to a point, in both words and manner, but then at a certain point when somebody pushed the line too far, they would just snap and go off on somebody, which actually reduced their stress. When insulted, the study found they tended to act more aggressively and be more confrontational, in subtle ways even like body language and mannerisms. All of this totally jives with my own experience and observations, both of my own feelings and how I've observed others of my culture acting.
So the theory is, in herding cultures the different clans will sometimes attack and steal other's animals property, or commit other acts against them, and when insulted in such a way it's important to show a strong response, otherwise it marks one as weak and likely to be victimized further. The side effect of this mentality is people tend to be a lot more polite in general, more respectful in how they address other, etc.
There are some things you see in other parts of the country that just don't happen back home, and things back home you'd never see anywhere else, like how complete strangers will wave at you when you pass them on the highway. In my town you can leave your car unlocked in a parking lot all day, or all week even, and nobody will bother it. I've seen cars break down on the side of the road and sit there for days or even a week or two untouched. You can buy something at a store and not count your change, cause people rarely ever steal it, though they might miscount. You rarely ever hear about somebody being robbed. Being an armed robber in those parts is a dangerous hobby, cause even if you get away with it for a bit sooner or later some little old lady will put a slug through your chest, and nobody but your mama will mourn you. Etc. So the theory fits and makes a lot of sense to me.
It's the "within limits" part that makes the "Free Speech Zones" so bad.
The key issue is that the "Free Speech Zones" have always been designated far away from where the event that the protesters are protesting is happening, and the mainstream media is discouraged from actually covering anything the protesters are doing. The goal of the zones is and has always been to silence protesters who's views fall outside the realm of what's deemed acceptable by the political establishment. For instance, I went to a VP debate back in 2004, and what was clearly allowed were signs saying "Kerry / Edwards" or "Bush / Cheney", but what was not allowed anywhere near a TV camera were signs saying "End the Fed" or "Leave Iraq Now".
I am officially gone from
Well, there are some crazy Christians, but not nearly as many, and the truly crazy ones are few and far between.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
Religion in and by itself, in whatever form it may rear its head, is contemptible and to be overcome as a relic from the Bronze Age.. I say with Richard Dawkins: "No, I am not going to respect other people's religion. I may and will respect other people - but religion, no way".
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace