No, it can be wrong. If it is wrong, it can also be debated/criticized/fixed by the electorate. In other words, it is up to the Russian people to decide what happens in Russia. It is not up to Americans to decide what is best for the Russian people on their behalf.
No, it is not our position to force the Russians to do anything here, but it is our position to state what we think is right, and object to actions which are wrong, and we certainly have a basic human right to call for reform of policies we see as unjust. (A right, incidentally, which is now endangered in Russia).
How so? Would you mind elaborating on these "clear and obvious repercussions?"
A law which allows the government to punish any speech which is deemed `dangerous to the state' could obviously make it very difficult to campaign to change the state's policies...
Could you please elaborate? How is the `right to privacy' being violated by these policies (in fact, can you provide a concise definition of what the right to privacy is?) How is the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure violated by these policies? How is the presumption of innocence being violated? Can you provide me one case (one!) of someone being imprisoned for speech?
Because you throw around what strikes me as a lot of FUD here, without pointing to any specific rights and how they are being violated. You point to new FBI policies which do nothing more than allow the FBI to take note of public speeches or go on google, and you try to suggest that this is a violation of the above rights. How do you figure?
How very odd. Do you have any rational basis for your claim that working for a salary is not right? Or are we just to take your word for it? And if we do take your word for it, do you think that it makes the leap of illogic in your last paragraph make any more sense?
On the contrary, I would argue that it is the subjective approach that abdicates responsibility -- for if we buy the idea that all systems of morality are subjective, how could we ever consider one system of morals to be better than another?
If you believe that you could just as responsibly have held a different subjective belief, how do you fault those who believe in the oppression of women, or the murder of those who hold different beliefs, or the enslavement of those with a different color skin? You cannot fault them for holding these beliefs, for how would you argue that your beliefs that these things are wrong are better than their belief that these things are right?
Now you, and others, keep claiming this, but the fact remains that every single government which has described itself as communist has been murderous and totalitarian. Every single one. And every single one has said, as you say, that `what went before was not really communism. We are the true communism.'
So, while you may say `trust us, we'll be different this time, we mean it', you'll have to forgive us if we're not willing to take that chance.
By this argument, nothing done by an elected government could ever be wrong, something I'm sure you'd agree is not the case. Even if you did not, your analogy falls apart in this case, since this law has clear and obvious repercussions on the ability of the Russian people to replace their government through elections.
This is simply incorrect. If you surrender the idea of an external, universal, and objective moral criteria, you lose all grounds to ever consider any action to be better than another.
For example, there was a time when many in the Southern United States believed that slavery was `right'. But it was not right, and no amount of belief to the contrary could make it right. Likewise, many in the Arab world believe that the oppression of women is `right'. By your criteria, they are as correct as those in the west who believe it is not. Do you believe this?
And if so, by what basis do you object to anything that anyone does?
So what, exactly, are you suggesting? That insisting that someone not copy your speech is `just the same, man' as declaring certain opinions verboten and punishing those who voice them? Really?
No, I said `objectively wrong', and that's what I meant. If you surrender the idea of an objective moral standard, you lose all criteria to ever judge any action -- even the `goals' you discuss as an alternative phrasing could never be compared; you could never decide that `not killing people at random' was a better goal than `killing people at random' if you do not hold your goals against an external standard.
So, I repeat: some things are objectively wrong, even though the culture practicing them believes in them. The oppression of women in the Arab world, for example, is wrong, and our own goal of equality between the sexes is better. Do you disagree?
With due respect, the fact that many cultures believe something does not of itself make that thing acceptable. During World War II, most Germans, and certainly the German culture of the time believed in exterminating Jews. This does not mean that exterminating Jews was `right' or `accceptable'. It was still wrong because it was wrong in an objective sense, and no prevaling cultural belief could make it right.
Likewise, there was a time when many in the south believed that slavery was right -- but it was not.
Likewise, you seem to suggest that the oppression of women in `most Islamic states' is not wrong because it is part of their culture. This is incorrect. It is wrong, and would be wrong even if the whole world were complicit in it.
Do you disagree? Do you think that these things could somehow become `right' if only enough people agreed to them? They could not.
How does this follow? We can debate whether we as a nation have a right to force Russia to change their laws, but you aren't really suggesting that we have no right to object to the Russians limiting free speech, or the Saudis oppressing women, or the Taliban killing people for owning television sets, are you?
How do you figure? How does making these things the law make them acceptable or okay in any way?
Actually, the USA PATRIOT act is merely an extension to organized terrorist groups of the same methods which were ruled constitutional by the supreme court when JFK applied them to the mafia forty years ago. Not as exciting as your breathless insinuations that the US is to blame for the attacks of September 11, but then life is generally less exciting than conspiracy theory. Oh well.
It's worth pointing out that having someone stop by to ask you a few questions (and them having to leave if you refuse to talk to them) is hardly the same as being arrested -- and even this doesn't happen without the appearance of a credible threat -- something much more immediate than merely voicing ideas which the government has declared verboten.
He's welcome to tell the American people whatever he wishes to. And when he's done telling us, he'll still be a tin-pot dictator who advocates the murder of children in order to distract attention from his own brutal regime.
Funny, you say that as if merely being `another society' somehow made them immune to basic, universal ideals such as free speech. The fact is that some things are objectively wrong, no matter what society they are part of, and even if they correspond to the beliefs of that society.
Right, but basic to such an approach is the principle that people have some sort of `right not to be offended'. And once such a right is established, society is held hostage to those who are the most sensitive to perceived insults, with any opinion potentially becoming verboten depending on who claims to be offended.
This isn't a `slippery slope' argument -- once speech can arbitrarily become illegal based on the claim that it is offensive, you are already pretty far down the slope.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it can be wrong. If it is wrong, it can also be debated/criticized/fixed by the electorate. In other words, it is up to the Russian people to decide what happens in Russia. It is not up to Americans to decide what is best for the Russian people on their behalf.
No, it is not our position to force the Russians to do anything here, but it is our position to state what we think is right, and object to actions which are wrong, and we certainly have a basic human right to call for reform of policies we see as unjust. (A right, incidentally, which is now endangered in Russia).
How so? Would you mind elaborating on these "clear and obvious repercussions?"
A law which allows the government to punish any speech which is deemed `dangerous to the state' could obviously make it very difficult to campaign to change the state's policies...
Could you please elaborate? How is the `right to privacy' being violated by these policies (in fact, can you provide a concise definition of what the right to privacy is?) How is the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure violated by these policies? How is the presumption of innocence being violated? Can you provide me one case (one!) of someone being imprisoned for speech?
Because you throw around what strikes me as a lot of FUD here, without pointing to any specific rights and how they are being violated. You point to new FBI policies which do nothing more than allow the FBI to take note of public speeches or go on google, and you try to suggest that this is a violation of the above rights. How do you figure?
Wrong. If you are any sort of American you have the same rights as any other American. Can you provide any sort of cite disputing this?
How very odd. Do you have any rational basis for your claim that working for a salary is not right? Or are we just to take your word for it? And if we do take your word for it, do you think that it makes the leap of illogic in your last paragraph make any more sense?
If you believe that you could just as responsibly have held a different subjective belief, how do you fault those who believe in the oppression of women, or the murder of those who hold different beliefs, or the enslavement of those with a different color skin? You cannot fault them for holding these beliefs, for how would you argue that your beliefs that these things are wrong are better than their belief that these things are right?
How do you sleep with all those black helicopters overhead?
So, while you may say `trust us, we'll be different this time, we mean it', you'll have to forgive us if we're not willing to take that chance.
By this argument, nothing done by an elected government could ever be wrong, something I'm sure you'd agree is not the case. Even if you did not, your analogy falls apart in this case, since this law has clear and obvious repercussions on the ability of the Russian people to replace their government through elections.
For example, there was a time when many in the Southern United States believed that slavery was `right'. But it was not right, and no amount of belief to the contrary could make it right. Likewise, many in the Arab world believe that the oppression of women is `right'. By your criteria, they are as correct as those in the west who believe it is not. Do you believe this?
And if so, by what basis do you object to anything that anyone does?
So what, exactly, are you suggesting? That insisting that someone not copy your speech is `just the same, man' as declaring certain opinions verboten and punishing those who voice them? Really?
Should I take this to mean that you don't, in fact, have any examples to point to?
So, I repeat: some things are objectively wrong, even though the culture practicing them believes in them. The oppression of women in the Arab world, for example, is wrong, and our own goal of equality between the sexes is better. Do you disagree?
Likewise, there was a time when many in the south believed that slavery was right -- but it was not.
Likewise, you seem to suggest that the oppression of women in `most Islamic states' is not wrong because it is part of their culture. This is incorrect. It is wrong, and would be wrong even if the whole world were complicit in it.
Do you disagree? Do you think that these things could somehow become `right' if only enough people agreed to them? They could not.
Out of curiosity, what specific rights do you see as `eaten away' by the USA PATRIOT act?
How do you figure? How does making these things the law make them acceptable or okay in any way?
Show me where USA PATRIOT does anything which is at all comparable to declaring certain beliefs verboten and punishing those who express them.
That's certainly true. The communists killed a lot more people. Both are evil totalitarian ideologies though.
By the way, what `freedoms' are you alleging are being `handed over left and right'? Would you care to elaborate?
Actually, the USA PATRIOT act is merely an extension to organized terrorist groups of the same methods which were ruled constitutional by the supreme court when JFK applied them to the mafia forty years ago. Not as exciting as your breathless insinuations that the US is to blame for the attacks of September 11, but then life is generally less exciting than conspiracy theory. Oh well.
It's worth pointing out that having someone stop by to ask you a few questions (and them having to leave if you refuse to talk to them) is hardly the same as being arrested -- and even this doesn't happen without the appearance of a credible threat -- something much more immediate than merely voicing ideas which the government has declared verboten.
He's welcome to tell the American people whatever he wishes to. And when he's done telling us, he'll still be a tin-pot dictator who advocates the murder of children in order to distract attention from his own brutal regime.
Any questions?
Funny, you say that as if merely being `another society' somehow made them immune to basic, universal ideals such as free speech. The fact is that some things are objectively wrong, no matter what society they are part of, and even if they correspond to the beliefs of that society.
Can you provide any cite to back up this claim?
Right, but basic to such an approach is the principle that people have some sort of `right not to be offended'. And once such a right is established, society is held hostage to those who are the most sensitive to perceived insults, with any opinion potentially becoming verboten depending on who claims to be offended.
This isn't a `slippery slope' argument -- once speech can arbitrarily become illegal based on the claim that it is offensive, you are already pretty far down the slope.
Umm, huh? How is declaring it illegal to voice certain opinions `protecting freedom'?