Were they shooting through Christmas and New Years?
I have no idea. I just know the guy who said it was put on indefinite hiatus, and since people were comparing this to the DC's, I was wondering if their record company did anything similar to them.
Anyway, he's just lucky he's not in Europe; he could be in jail, or at least fined. I'm sure we'll get similar hate speech laws here soon enough though.
Their primary sponsor went through some hemming and hawing just like A&E is doing now.
I read their Wikipedia page and I didn't see anything about their record company doing anything, and they were with Columbia before and after the incident. I guess we'll see who caves first, if anybody. Should be interesting. But I don't think a lot of people defending A&E would be doing so if somebody famous was fired from a company for being pro-gay.
And yes, his statement on gays is the position of tens of millions of Christians in the US, which is why he must be made an example of. If the rich and famous aren't immune, what would happen to a nobody?
Oh and remember what happened to James Watson some years ago?
"On October 25, 2007, Watson was compelled to retire as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on New York's Long Island and from its board of directors, after he had been quoted in The Times the previous week as saying "[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.""
The guy was one of the two who discovered the structure of DNA and won the Nobel for it... a little more impressive than inventing a new duck call. But even THAT doesn't protect you; all must bow to the established rules of accepted thought.
I said nothing about their record company.Might push back the new episodes a couple of weeks.I guess we'll see who caves first, if anybody. Should be interesting.Yes. The sky is blue.But I don't think a lot of people defending A&E would be doing so if somebody famous was fired from a company for being pro-gay.
Yeah, you're taking this a bit far.And yes, his statement on gays is the position of tens of millions of Christians in the US, which is why he must be made an example of. If the rich and famous aren't immune, what would happen to a nobody?
A business made a business decision.
Yes, money and fame will not protect you from your own stupidity.
It's not the establishment rule of accepted thought, it's a public company's fear of reprisal from a unified caucus. This is the free market at work and conservatives don't like it. Go figure.
I didn't say you compared it to the DC's; Dan did.
And I don't think I'm taking it too far, as you agreed that the same thing wouldn't have happened if it was the other way around.
And are you saying that Watson is stupid, or was stupid for publicly saying what he said? I'll guess you'll say that that particular opinion of his is stupid. Although he's probably a better authority on the subject than anyone here, I'm guessing. We both know that it is simply not allowed to say what he said, and that's why he was fired *ahem* asked to step down.
I think it's absolutely their right to punish him, just as a company could do the same thing if an employee said something pro-gay that they thought would hurt them... right?
BTW, if anybody wants to read an article on how this goes in Europe, here you go. Once the Left has a majority on the SCOTUS there will be a case that moves up the ladder, and this will be the law here. One of the judges already talked about whether or not hate speech is protected by the 1st, and how we might need to re-examine that.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3788Europe’s War on Free Speech
The Amsterdam Court of Appeals has ordered the criminal prosecution of a Dutch Member of Parliament for criticizing Islam. The court’s ruling overturns a previous decision by Dutch public prosecutors, who had determined that there was not enough evidence to charge Geert Wilders, leader of the conservative Freedom Party, for hate crimes after he produced a hard-hitting film that says Islam promotes violence. In a written judgment, the appeals court said that “by attacking the symbols of the Muslim religion, [Wilders] also insulted Muslim believers.”
The ruling will please the Dutch Muslim immigrant groups who asked the appeals court to force the justice department to prosecute Wilders for expressing his opinions. But many others say the prosecution is an alarming attack on free speech by politically correct activist judges who are trying to silence criticism of the growing power of Islam in Europe.
Wilders, who frequently speaks out against the “Islamization” of the Netherlands, said “the judgment of the court [is] an attack on the freedom of expression.... Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted.... Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?”
Of course, Wilders is only the latest in a line of Dutch citizens who have run afoul of the pro-Muslim thought police in post-Christian Holland. In 2002, Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was assassinated for his views on Islam and Muslim immigration. In 2004, Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh was stabbed to death for producing a movie that criticized Islam. In 2006, former Dutch lawmaker Ayaan Hirsi Ali was forced to flee the country after criticizing the mistreatment of women in Islamic societies.
What makes the Wilders case different, however, is that the Dutch state itself is now caving in to pressure from Muslim immigrants who seek to criminalize any opinions that could be deemed to insult Islam or criticize Muslim immigration.
But Holland is not the only European country at war with the exercise of free speech. In Austria, for example, Member of Parliament Susanne Winter was convicted for the “crime” of saying that “in today’s system” the Prophet Muhammad would be considered a “child molester,” referring to his marriage to a six-year-old child. She was also convicted for “incitement” for warning that Austria faces an “Islamic immigration tsunami.”
In Italy, the journalist and author Oriana Fallaci was taken to court for writing that Islam “brings hate instead of love and slavery instead of freedom.” She died in September 2006, two months after the start of her trial. In France, novelist Michel Houellebecq was taken to court for calling Islam “the stupidest religion.” He was acquitted in October 2002. More recently, animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot was convicted in June 2008 by a Paris court for “inciting racial hatred” for demanding that Muslims anaesthetize animals before slaughtering them.
In Britain, the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which creates a new crime of intentionally stirring up religious hatred against people on religious grounds, has led to zealousness bordering on the absurd. In Nottingham, for example, the Greenwood Primary School cancelled a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha. In Scarborough, the Yorkshire Coast College removed the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. In Scotland, the Tayside Police Department apologized for featuring a German shepherd puppy as part of a campaign to publicize its new non-emergency telephone number. The postcards are potentially offensive to city’s 3,000-strong Muslim community because Islamic legal tradition says that dogs are impure.
In Glasgow, a Christian radio show host was fired after a debate between a Muslim and a Christian on whether Jesus is “the way, the truth and the life.” In Cheshire, two students at the Alsager High School were punished by their teacher for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their Religious Education class. In East London, all elected members of Tower Hamlets town council were told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Muslim month of Ramadan. Special arrangements were also made to disrupt council meetings to allow for Muslim prayer. Meanwhile, the council renamed a staff Christmas party as a “festive meal”.
Nor are Muslims the only ones trying to restrict free speech in Europe. In Britain, for example, the government is facing pressure from sexual rights activists to overturn a free speech protection amendment added to a controversial “gay hate” law. The free speech protection clause, which states that criticizing sexual practice or urging people to refrain from such conduct will not, in itself, be a crime, was added to the new offense of “incitement to phobic hatred.” But now the government wants to remove that protection. The crime of inciting phobic hatred includes any words or behavior which is threatening and intended to stir up hatred. It carries a maximum sentence of seven years in prison.
At the European level, meanwhile, government ministers from the 27 member states of the European Union are debating a draft EU Directive that aims to outlaw discrimination and “harassment” in the provision of goods and services. The new legislation would, for example, shut down Christian adoption agencies if they refuse to provide same-sex couples with children. Indeed, the definition of “harassment” is so broad that even moderate explanations of Christian beliefs on sexual conduct or other religions could be considered a crime.
Europe’s war on free speech is the result of a profound iden y crisis, one that is being generated by the blanket abandonment of traditional Judeo-Christian values coupled with mass immigration from Muslim countries. But in their zeal to criminalize free thought and free speech, the leftwing guardians of Orwellian political correctness are systematically destroying European democracy.
Not only are European elites using hate crime legislation to silence people with opinions that do not conform to official state policies. They are also dividing Europeans into two groups (the majority and the minority), each with different rights and responsibilities. The minority (Muslims, sexuals, Socialists) is imposing its will upon the majority (non-Muslim, heterosexuals, non-Socialists) by aggressively prosecuting those who refuse to fall into line.
Europeans lack an American-like First Amendment, which means they can be punished for expressing the “wrong” opinions. But Europe’s war on free speech should serve as a warning to Americans about the perils of complacency. Indeed, the Obama administration says it intends to “strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section.” Some politicians have also expressed support for re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine, which would effectively censor the opinions of tens of millions of Americans.
More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned of the slow drift from freedom to tyranny when he observed that “there are rights which it is useless to surrender to the government and which governments have yet always been found to invade. These are the rights of thinking and publishing our thoughts by speaking or writing.”
Will the United States follow in Europe’s footsteps?
The "example" screed was taking it too far.
A business made a business decision.
I am saying Watson was not protected by his fame from his own stupidity. He was stupid to say what he said as a representative of that private en y.And are you saying that Watson is stupid, or was stupid for publicly saying what he said? I'll guess you'll say that that particular opinion of his is stupid. Although he's probably a better authority on the subject than anyone here, I'm guessing. We both know that it is simply not allowed to say what he said, and that's why he was fired *ahem* asked to step down.
A private en y made a personnel decision. Watson ed up.
It won't be law here.
Overall, Do you think the ACLU has a positive or negative influence on the American judicial system?
Everyone has the right to free speech, and other people have the right to retaliate in legal ways.
"Screed". You think I went too far, I don't. I stated why.
I'm sure that 10-20 years ago plenty of Europeans thought that no one would ever end up in a courtroom just for being critical of Islam.
The ACLU? It's been around along time right? I don't know, I'd have to look into their history. They get blame from the right today for being anti prayer in schools, pro gay rights, and things like that. But I know that they aren't just that. They backed some people that aren't left at all. I would think that early in their history they might not have been seen that way. I just looked up that they started in 1920; that's almost a century. I really don't know how to answer over such a long time without knowing a lot about them, but since they hate government surveillance, I'll say good. I'm guessing you were ready to hammer me for saying bad LOL.
I agree with you but if Chick-fil-A suspended an employee for stating publicly that he supported same sex marriage you know the same people who support A&E's decision would be outraged at Chick-Fil-A and ranting about free speech blah blah blah.
Absolutely. But they would justify it. You might get to see that here.
No bill of rights in Europe. We got one here. You will be able to criticize Islam.
Enjoy.
Not a gotcha question. I was just trying to get your temperature on the predominant organization that has rigorously defended the right of free speech. Generally people who lean to the right don't have a favorable opinion of the ACLU.
We can only hope the ACLU has as much influence defending the first amendment as the NRA has had defending the second. We can't pass background check legislation for gun ownership with majority american support and you're talking about eliminating free speech. Forgive me for thinking you're a bit of a drama queen.
The only thing I don't get about this whole 'scandal' is the "free speech" claims.
AFAIK, nobody told him to stop saying what he believes in, nor was he jailed or sued for speaking his mind.
He can open a twitter account or a website tomorrow and keep on yapping. Don't really get the claims that this case is a good example of free speech being curbed, tbh
Very, very wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights
I sit corrected, but theirs are not identical to ours. The Netherlands' cons ution in particular allows for laws that penalize certain speech. Ours does not.
"theirs are not identical to ours" that's not a fault of their BoRs. the US BoR isn't EXCEPTIONALLY the best, except in chauvinists' imaginations.
Lots of speech in USA is not protected by the BoR, which primarily applies to the govt restricting speech.
And of course, try exercising the right to assemble and get your freedom-loving, Cons ution-loving ass beaten, maced, arrested, jailed by militarized police.
Then try to get a job with a "exercising my right of assembly" arrest record.
In Germany and France, at least, it's illegal to deny the Holocaust. And Germany has other laws about about Nazism.
Depends on which you prefer -- but they are deliberately different.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
