Is This Supposed to Be Funny?

Originally posted by FMF
If you're not offended, what's with your full court press ad hominem posting style then?

well, to put it plainly, I get a kick out of it. I hope you didn't get the wrong idea of what the desired effect of those insults really were.

Originally posted by FMF
While I think the word "disdain" is apt, I haven't accused you of "hating" free speech. Why are you putting that word in my mouth I wonder.

Anyway, what evidence would you accept?

Very well, so we have established that from your standpoint I have disdain for freedom of speech.

Now what is it that makes you feel this way? what specific word or phrase did I use which indicated some contempt for freedom of speech?

Anyway, what evidence would you accept?
whatever evidence you think you have.

Originally posted by FMF
Mmm. It seems you don't want to debate your own proposal. Ok. Whatever. I'm off to bed. Almost 12.30am. If you change your mind and decide to tell us more about your ideas for "further regulation" of the free speech of broadcasters, I will have a look tomorrow.

No, far from it, Im eager to debate my proposals. As a matter of fact my enthusiasm is such that I have devoted a whole thread to the issue previously, a thread in which you also contributed passionately under the pseudonym of "John W Booth", Im sure you remember it.

Anyway, my previous posts have answered a majority of your questions, and I simply don't feel the need to repeat myself given how I have already made my views and ultimate purposes very clear before. That isn't to say that I will refuse to answer any further question you have in mind, I'll be pleased to answer them if they are not repetitions of what you have already said before.

Originally posted by generalissimo
what specific word or phrase did I use which indicated some contempt for freedom of speech?

This:

generalissimo: Oh well, its not like this sort of vitriol is in any way incongruous to the usual spiteful and mean-spirited monologues spewed out by Limbaugh, if anything its only evidence of the necessity for further regulation of talk radio.

These words are those of someone whose ideology and instincts incorporate contempt for the principle of free speech.

You are quite obviously determined not to answer any questions on how this proposal of "further regulation" would have specifically impacted Limbaugh's comments about the Japanese in the OP had they been in force. You're on some kind of kick, I take it, which is your prerogative. I won't press you on it any more.

Originally posted by FMF
This:

generalissimo: [b]Oh well, its not like this sort of vitriol is in any way incongruous to the usual spiteful and mean-spirited monologues spewed out by Limbaugh, if anything its only evidence of the necessity for further regulation of talk radio.

These words are those of someone whose ideology and instincts incorporate contempt for the principle ...[text shortened]... some kind of kick, I take it, which is your prerogative. I won't press you on it any more.[/b]

These words are those of someone whose ideology and instincts incorporate contempt for the principle of free speech.

Could you elaborate on this?

Furthermore, back to the point about regulations in other countries, would you say that the UK government is an enemy of free speech for enacting hate speech laws? Do you view the fairness doctrine as a policy motivated by "contempt for the principle of free speech"?

You are quite obviously determined not to answer any questions on how this proposal of "further regulation" would have specifically impacted Limbaugh's comments about the Japanese in the OP had they been in force.

As far as Im aware it was within my discretion what questions I answered:

originally posted by FMF
"...You don't need to answer them all. Just answer a few of them. Any of them."

and I feel most of the questions you posed were ultimately provided with an answer. With regards to Limbaugh's comment specifically I retain my view that if his remarks were deemed to be injurious to certain individuals or groups he should certainly be sued if anyone is interested in bringing a case agaisnt him.

Originally posted by generalissimo
With regards to Limbaugh's comment specifically I retain my view that if his remarks were deemed to be injurious to certain individuals or groups he should certainly be sued if anyone is interested in bringing a case agaisnt him.

He can't be sued for what he said as things currently stand. Are you saying that your "further regulation" would make suing him more likely to succeed?

Originally posted by generalissimo
Furthermore, back to the point about regulations in other countries, would you say that the UK government is an enemy of free speech for enacting hate speech laws?

No, I don't really think that the UK, as a country, can be described as such. I think that people who try to restrict free speech are the 'enemies of free speech'. I oppose so called "hate speech" laws and I believe that genuine supporters of free speech (in the UK and elsewhere) oppose them too.

[Indeed nor do I subscribe to the concept of "hate crimes" as something somehow distinct from other crimes and their motivations.]

I would say that people in government in the UK who defend or advocate such restrictions on free speech are the 'enemies of free speech' and that the UK is in need of reform in this matter as long as such restrictions are in force.

I think that if any UK government official heard Limbaugh's remarks about the Japanese and said that it was evidence of the necessity for further regulation of broadcasters' freedom of speech, then he or she would be 'an enemy of free speech'. Undoubtedly.

I think the UK, while clearly better than many places around the world, is not as good as the US when it comes to free speech. Do you think Limbaugh could have been prosecuted in the UK under "hate speech" laws for his comments in the OP?

Originally posted by FMF
He can't be sued for what he said as things currently stand. Are you saying that your "further regulation" would make suing him more likely to succeed?

Yes, I suppose that is what Im saying.

Now I ask you once again, could you elaborate on how my words "are those of someone whose ideology and instincts incorporate contempt for the principle of free speech"?

Originally posted by generalissimo
Now I ask you once again, could you elaborate on how my words "are those of someone whose ideology and instincts incorporate contempt for the principle of free speech"?

No. It's crystal clear. Doesn't need 'extrapolation'. You didn't like Limbaugh's comments and you said it was evidence for the need for "further regulation" of his freedom to make those comments on air. Unless you explain what "further regulation" you propose [and you have rather strangely refused to answer specific questions about it] that would have prevented Limbaugh from making those comments and show how they would not curtail his freedom of speech, then it is clear that you have contempt for his freedom of speech and therefore, by logical extension, a contempt for the principle of free speech in general - certainly by comparison to any of its genuine advocates or defenders.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Yes, I suppose that is what Im saying.

Well he can't be sued for what he said as things currently stand. How exactly would your "further regulation" make suing him more likely to succeed? Why not be specific? It is your own proposal after all.

Originally posted by FMF
No, I don't really think that the UK, as a country, can be described as such. I think that people who try to restrict free speech are the 'enemies of free speech'. I oppose so called "hate speech" laws and I believe that genuine supporters of free speech (in the UK and elsewhere) oppose them too.

[Indeed nor do I subscribe to the concept of "hate crimes" as ...[text shortened]... ve been prosecuted in the UK under "hate speech" laws for his comments in the OP?

No, I don't really think that the UK, as a country, can be described as such. I think that people who try to restrict free speech are the 'enemies of free speech'. I oppose so called "hate speech" laws and I believe that genuine supporters of free speech (in the UK and elsewhere) oppose them too.

Do you see people who express support for the principle of free speech and yet simultaneously advocate controls and regulation to not be "genuine"?
In your view, should public discourse be totally unrestrained by legislation in all circumstances?

I think the UK, while clearly better than many places around the world, is not as good as the US when it comes to free speech. Do you think Limbaugh could have been prosecuted in the UK under "hate speech" laws for his comments in the OP?

I assume you would have agreed with the Court decision in the US regarding the legality of the actions of the westboro baptist church as a exercise of free speech, no?
Im sure that, had these comments been made in the UK, some form of penalization would have followed, especially if it had been made by someone working for the BBC.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Do you see people who express support for the principle of free speech and yet simultaneously advocate controls and regulation to not be "genuine"?

Yes. Especially in a case like your suggestion that Limbaugh's freedom of speech should be curtailed in any way for his remarks about the Japanese. You are not an advocate of free speech, generalissimo. You want to pick and choose the things you feel need "further regulation". You are the most prominent enemy of free speech on this forum.

Originally posted by generalissimo
I assume you would have agreed with the Court decision in the US regarding the legality of the actions of the westboro baptist church as a exercise of free speech, no?

Of course I do. It was the right decision.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Im sure that, had [Limbaugh's Japan/environmentalist] comments been made in the UK, some form of penalization would have followed, especially if it had been made by someone working for the BBC.

Well, then. The U.S. is a more robust and safe place for the principle of free speech than the U.K. I've always thought so.

Originally posted by FMF
No. It's crystal clear. Doesn't need 'extrapolation'. You didn't like Limbaugh's comments and you said it was evidence for the need for "further regulation" of his freedom to make those comments on air. Unless you explain what "further regulation" you propose [and you have rather strangely refused to answer specific questions about it] that would have prevented ...[text shortened]... ech in general - certainly by comparison to any of its genuine advocates or defenders.

No. It's crystal clear
I beg to differ, I didn't see anything in those words which could possibly justify your accusations.

Unless you explain what "further regulation" you propose
I believe I have done that already:

originally posted by generalissimo
"...the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine alongside legal liability for any speech which may be deemed to stir up racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, or abuse and harrassment of individuals or groups"