Free Speech

[Gunmonk]

I read this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7113186.stm) today and it got me thinking. Free speech has gotten us all inot many wars and useless arguments just because of pure semantics and people getting offended. I personally think Free Speech is a wonderful beautiful thing however, I was wonder what you guys thought, especially after reading the article.

My thought was this, free speech is good only as long as people continue to believe it. I say believe because with Hitler people believed him, they called him fuhrer, savior. Because of free speech hitler was able to get by with what he did. But that begs another question are there combinations of free speech and governments or political philosophies, or philosophies that prove to be dangerous or tyrranical in nature that end up hurting people in the long run.

[Ghost_Assasain]

Through Mass cencorship Hitler was able to come into power, not through freedom of speech. However it is a good example, as one would say Soviet Russia, where the importance of Freedom of speech is seen. Really the idea comes from that a government cannot cencor content it deems unworthy. To stop messages being distributed that it doesn't like, Lawful protest etc. etc.

The idea that freedom of speech would have stopped Hitler's rise to power isn't particularly well placed in history. At the same time the NAZI party was growing (at which time it was not overly anti-semetic, more anti-communist) there was just as much communist propaganda and 'speeches' ocurring. And we see that even when Freedom of Speech does not exist, lets take Tsarist Russia, that extreme groups are still more then able to spread their teachings and grow their numbers regardless of the rights afforded to them.

There is an irony to a person protesting anothers right to speech as in essence they are both portected under the same idea that every person has the right to 'speak' whatever they want without fear of governmental persecution.

As a little side note, Nowhere in Australia (expect maybe NSW) is there any protection or right to Freedom of Speech. It is just assumed to be under the United Nations Basic Human Rights.

[Anoiktos]

There are, in that article, essentially two arguments against free speech:
1. It can create a "clear and imminent danger of violence"
2. It can "be offensive"

To the second, I say this: Should we attempt to limit speech to kinds that are "not offensive", all people will be required not to speak: as anyone who has been around hot-headed children, teenagers, or adults will know, anything can offend.

To the first, I say this: Should someone we deem responsible enough to be considered adult and be given the privileges thereof choose to manifest violence due to their beliefs or the speech of others, then they are the ones in the wrong. Someone responsible enough to be considered adult should equally be responsible enough to parse the information or lack thereof and the veracity of such information in their own time and manner, and furthermore to control themselves from exercising the urges they have agreed (by their existence within society) to suppress.

That said, free speech around people who are not adult, whose cognitive ability can not be assumed to be as developed as that of an adult, is and has been controlled. Hence limitations on free speech within schools, and the complicated repartees that parents and schools develop to navigate this hazy ground.

Free speech in public areas is more difficult to adjudicate, but perhaps it is best to treat it as one would smoking, limiting it in areas where it is most likely to do harm to children, but relying on parents or guardians (who, after all, have the right and responsibility to attempt to choose responsibly what information or diatribe their children have access to) to protect their sensibilities or adjust their moral compass in more public areas.

[UMSLdragon]

THis is almost the same as "being allowed to do whatever" because of the Freedom of Rights. There are limits because of safety. Some people can say some pretty derogative things (WB proves it). The best thing to say would be something that would "lift" a person up, not break them down. That's really all the rules are trying to follow. If you think about it anyway.

There are just somethings you shouldn't say. But if you need some sort of law to tell you that, then you got some problems to work out. I know it sounds mean, but there are more appropriate ways to act than others. Downcast/negativity talking doesn't get anywhere. Look at how Canada does its campaigns. They're all negative ads telling people what other parties siad they would and didn't. I don't care about who didn't do what. I care about what you are going to do when you're in office.

[ChimTheGrim21]

Let me ask a blunt question: If someone is insulted, why would you care? It is that person's fault for not being tolerant. If you do not like someone, it's simple.. don't hang around them or support them in any way. If you are easily insulted, then you need to consider that something is wrong with your character.

"No-one has the right not to be offended: that is the essence of a free society."
-I whole heartedly agree with that statement.

[UMSLdragon]

It is that person's fault for not being tolerant.
It's also called common curtesy to not offend someone in any fashion according to their character also. Even though I don't wholly agree with that idea ll the time. Still gives good rep.

[ChimTheGrim21]

So we should make it a law to have common curtesy? Then we should also make a law that everyone needs to show respect to everyone else in every situation, then make a law that everyone must adhere to the strict code of "being nice" for the better of society, then make more laws on how to execute these laws through force (you get the point yet?).

People have to choose to be good on their own. That is what makes freedom so sweet. If you start forcing people to be good, then your freedom is 100% gone.

[Seal]

really, you guys should try a bit more. the thread went from potential greatness to pointlessness and glanced at a flamewar, too.

UMSL, Chim, that doesn't look really good, despite not being deleted.

[Anoiktos]

Actually, that brings up a very specific point: do the forum rules impinge on free speech, and what purpose does this serve? Furthermore, what is the difference between written free speech and unwritten free speech, free speech for the purpose of amusement and free speech for political purposes?

...And which are more damaging?

The forum rules are a way in which to quantify the restriction of free speech, to control the onset of flamewars and spam. Because speech - and offense - is relative, to what extent do the forum rules service, and to what extent do they merely serve as barriers to intelligent discussion?

[Gunmonk]

Actually, that brings up a very specific point: do the forum rules impinge on free speech, and what purpose does this serve? Furthermore, what is the difference between written free speech and unwritten free speech, free speech for the purpose of amusement and free speech for political purposes?

...And which are more damaging?

The forum rules are a way in which to quantify the restriction of free speech, to control the onset of flamewars and spam. Because speech - and offense - is relative, to what extent do the forum rules service, and to what extent do they merely serve as barriers to intelligent discussion?

Forums are not held within american laws or any other laws thereof, making it easily unlegistlated in terms of speech. However, child pr0n is ok on the internet but when people download it, it is a felony offense, not exactly the point but I was thinking about legistlation about the internet.

Forum rules are not meant to create a "free society" as you have seen within this thread itself, but to keep order and structure... as with the neg rep people tend to abuse it and thus it is taken away, same here, we have free speech however when our only intent is to flame, it is then when we find ourselves in a curious predicament when posts are being deleted and infractions are being dished out.

However on the flip side of this coin, Forum rules are meant to allow for freedom, such as the ones prohibiting the posting of pornographic material, or the use of excessive swearing and/or cursing (which also includes flaming as well). In short we have all sorts of freedom with the "walls" of these rules, it is when we go outside these "walls" when we find that our freedom is taken away, or belittled (infractions, and/or bannings). I guess it could be likened to if you made a bomb threat towards a school, jokingly or not you are abusing your privileges and thus finding yourself in trouble and potentially getting gang raped by others that have committed the same infractionary offenses that you have yourself committed.

That is my take on forum rules and free speech, please correct me if I am wrong.

[Seal]

the forum rules define the expectations of quality, not topics -- though some topics, such as explicit and disgusting-to-most content are considered inappropriate in our society, which in turn applies here, too. in general the rules are there to allow as many kinds of people as possible to discuss things interesting to them, with as little as possible stuff that they don't really approve.


the expectations vary from board to board, forum to forum. one can say anything on the internet, but what stays is decided by the peers (and admins).

[UMSLdragon]

So we should make it a law to have common curtesy? Then we should also make a law that everyone needs to show respect to everyone else in every situation, then make a law that everyone must adhere to the strict code of "being nice" for the better of society, then make more laws on how to execute these laws through force (you get the point yet?).

People have to choose to be good on their own. That is what makes freedom so sweet. If you start forcing people to be good, then your freedom is 100% gone.

No, it has nothing to do with law. If people would teach their children to treat others in a more respectable fashion when they are young, then some 'respect to authority' issues wouldn't happen. Like your take on the "Common Curtesy Law." You will act as you are taught in your early years of life.

[Oblongato]

Free speech is one thing (which I support, with very few exceptions).

The other side of the coin is listening. While you may be free to say it (or write it, etc.), you cannot compel others to listen (or read, etc.). Individuals have their own standards and they must be free to decline to listen.

Assume you are standing on your soapbox in the park (as you do), expressing your views on a number of offensive topics. Here people who don't want to hear what you have to say can simply move a little further away. But if you take out a megaphone, you take away the ability to decline to listen and you have overstepped the bounds of free speech.

Neo Nazis? I say let them say what they like, but if what they say suggests that they could become a threat, they should be monitored. Obviously, they should not be allowed to break the law.

Promoters of child porn? Let them promote, but as soon they harm an actual child, bring the law down on them.

There are a lot of folk out there who want to restrict access to speech. For parents this is probably a reasonable thing. Then there are those who would try to eliminate the speech itself to prevent others from getting access to it. This is in my view where the greatest danger lies, to freedom in general.

It should not be a crime to make your speech available to others, regardless of the content. If you get too in-your-face, however, you begin to infringe on the freedom of others not to listen, which is harassment, and a crime.

What about politeness / sensitivity / political correctness?

Take billboards for example. How should standards be established for what is allowed on a billboard? It would seem reasonable that looking at a billboard can't be avoided easily and that potentially offensive billboard content should therefore be prohibited.

On the other hand, practically everything you could put on a billboard will offend someone, somewhere. Should billboards therefore be taken down at the first complaint? This is where the not-particularly-satisfactory concept of community standards comes in. A lone complaint is not sufficient, but if the community objects, the speech can be restricted. But how does one determine what a community's standard is? And what if the community's standards conflict with rights? Community standards is a concept so vague that it does not in my opinion belong in law.

So where and how should the lines be drawn? How should the following examples be dealt with?

- Neo Nazi propaganda literature
- Non-representational child porn (drawings, lolicon etc. where no actual child is involved)
- Representations of Mohammed (cartoons etc.)

[UMSLdragon]

For adults, I would hope that they could make good choices. But for children, they will just soak up what they see, hear, yadda, yadda. If there would be a reason for not doing something offencive, it would be because a child might tag along in your acts. Which, is what you may be after. All it takes if for a kid to see one act, and that could direct their life no matter how hard a parent tries.

Promoters of child porn? Let them promote, but as soon they harm an actual child, bring the law down on them.
Porn is just a derrogative put down of woman. And if you read your sentance again, you might find it contradictive. Child porn is obviously the enjoyment of a naked child, correct? How can you get child porn without hurting the child? Also, it's very hard to shut down. Well, they make it harder than it seems. But to all porn, I find it disrepectful to the human body on both sides.

Most things people would find offensive are because it probably has harmed someone in some fashion along the line. Or, it could harm someone down the line.

[Oblongato]

As I mentioned, it is reasonable for parents to censor what their children have access to. That said, parents also have to obligation to prepare their children to deal with the real world. So parents should expose their children to the real world at a pace that they can handle and provide guidance that they believe will make their children good people. To varying degrees, children are able to think for themselves and can deal with what is out there, whether it be violence, porn or religious cults. Parents should, however, monitor how their children are dealing with the things they are exposed to.

Whether porn is something bad is debatable. For me, the only bad thing about it is the fact that porn actors (primarily actresses) are not often given the respect they deserve as human beings. I welcome the fact that Victorian morals are vanishing. I think that the primarily religious restrictive attitudes towards sex are unnatural, at odds with human biology. (Priests are the best example of this.) I think it is disappointing that nearly all porn is cheap and nasty, but I see nothing wrong or disrespectful about porn itself.

I believe that sexual interaction between adults and children (between children it is different) is damaging to children and is rightly forbidden. But its illegality does not have an influence on people's sexual predilections. There are adults who are sexually attracted to children. What is actually accomplished by forbidding child pornography that does not involve real children? A recent study has suggested that access to internet porn has played a real and significant role in reducing the incidence of rape. (see link: http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/) If the same is true for non-representational child porn (drawings etc. that do not involve real children), perhaps it should be encouraged as a harmless release to reduce the likelihood that such adults will seek sexual interaction with actual children.

Speech is not the act itself. All societies are addicted to stories, stories (in film, books etc.) in which things are told of that are wrong, immoral, illegal etc. Not everyone who partakes of these stories acts out the events in the stories. In fact, there is little to suggest that they are more likely to do so.

People should be educated that they cannot be harmed by words. Speech is symbols only, which can be ignored or not as one chooses. The trend towards being easily offended is for me very disturbing. The more sensitive we become to offense, the more violent and uncooperative we become, and the less able to live in a pluralistic society. We should learn to control our actions, not our speech.

[Icarus]

Free speech is one thing (which I support, with very few exceptions).

The other side of the coin is listening.

I thought the whole idea of free speech is that everyone is heard, so they could voice how they feel about things and not be rejected. The legitimacy of freedom of speech is contingent on how open minded people are to be able to recognize what is good, and what is bad. In a historical context, modern society is fairly open-minded.

I wouldn't see anything wrong with neo-nazis, religious extremists, or neo-confederates to have their own TV networks, because we should be able to hear them, and what they have to say, why they say it, and judge it personally in a non-biased manner.

Of course, such organizations, for security reasons, would be monitored by the federal government.

So where and how should the lines be drawn? How should the following examples be dealt with?

- Neo Nazi propaganda literature
- Non-representational child porn (drawings, lolicon etc. where no actual child is involved)
- Representations of Mohammed (cartoons etc.)

All of them should be allowed. A government should not be bossed by social organizations to its will.

Most child porn that I have heard of involve girls just under the legal age limit, and I've heard that most of them consent, so I don't understand where the problem lies.

If I child were to be forced to have sex, then that is rape, and naturally against the law.

"Freedom" of speech is the only freedom in america that is not doublespeak, but that is slowly and soon changing. There's a movement to try to restrict what people say in certain places, scared that people are going to be reminded of a slavery they never experienced because someone said ******, or of a massive genocide that took place half a century ago, (all the while genocide is still alive and well in certain countries), because someone denied a historical event, or said "jew" instead of "jewish person".

Such denominations, such pains, such evils are simply a part of reality. To deny them is to deny that reality.

[ChimTheGrim21]

No, it has nothing to do with law. If people would teach their children to treat others in a more respectable fashion when they are young, then some 'respect to authority' issues wouldn't happen.Like your take on the "Common Curtesy Law." You will act as you are taught in your early years of life.

And so you have identified the root of the problem. The Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with bad parenting.

I feel almost confused as to why we are having a discussion that questions the most valuable right ever given to a free society (which most of us--including me-- take for granted).

[Oblongato]

I thought the whole idea of free speech is that everyone is heard, so they could voice how they feel about things and not be rejected. The legitimacy of freedom of speech is contingent on how open minded people are to be able to recognize what is good, and what is bad. In a historical context, modern society is fairly open-minded.

I wouldn't see anything wrong with neo-nazis, religious extremists, or neo-confederates to have their own TV networks, because we should be able to hear them, and what they have to say, why they say it, and judge it personally in a non-biased manner.

Of course, such organizations, for security reasons, would be monitored by the federal government.

I agree, with the caveat that people cannot be forced to listen.



All of them should be allowed. A government should not be bossed by social organizations to its will.

Most child porn that I have heard of involve girls just under the legal age limit, and I've heard that most of them consent, so I don't understand where the problem lies.

If I child were to be forced to have sex, then that is rape, and naturally against the law.

"Freedom" of speech is the only freedom in america that is not doublespeak, but that is slowly and soon changing. There's a movement to try to restrict what people say in certain places, scared that people are going to be reminded of a slavery they never experienced because someone said ******, or of a massive genocide that took place half a century ago, (all the while genocide is still alive and well in certain countries), because someone denied a historical event, or said "jew" instead of "jewish person".

Such denominations, such pains, such evils are simply a part of reality. To deny them is to deny that reality.

I agree here, too. Political correctness and speech taboos pose a very real danger in my view. They create a space in which dangerous behaviors can exist without even being discussed. I believe the the law should respect no speech taboos. I can see the need for laws against libel etc., but restrictions should be minimized as far as possible.

[UMSLdragon]

I agree, with the caveat that people cannot be forced to listen.
Ya, you might get quite a reaction if you do try to use force. Wars come to mind... But about the neo-nazis shows and stuff, I agree, you could turn it off and it would have no more influence on you anymore. But what about the people that do listen... and then even agree?

And, idealy, if there was total free speech, security measures wouldn't be needed? So, what's the catch?

[Oblongato]

I would never argue that there is no down side to free speech. Speech can indeed be dangerous, and governments must always be watchful of situations where speech has the potential to create a threat to the state. People can definitely be persuaded by hate speech.

However, I believe that censorship is even more dangerous. The state, or the law, should step in only when speech poses a concrete danger. In general, though, it should be sufficient to stop illegal behavior and leave the speech alone.

[UMSLdragon]

Agreed. Yet, violent behavior usually starts with words... not that you can really stop them, but that's where it usually starts. Which, in a way has nothing to do with pulic speech, but private... kinda scarey to think about. I'm just saying that some stuff shouldn't be allowed to be public. But, I can't go there b/c some stuff would be viewed different from people to people. Then we'd have something on our hands :/

[Oblongato]

Violent behavior does often start with words. But it is also important that citizens learn not to be so easily offended, not so easily provoked by words. The old adage "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me" seems to be forgotten. And the world is a more dangerous place for it. Everyone - rappers, Muslims, animal rights activists, Christians, Jews - even Atheists - seem to be going around looking to be offended. And the tendency to become violent when offended is also becoming more marked, it seems, prominent recent examples being the calls for the murder of cartoonists by radical Muslims and rappers gunned down for a casual insult.

[Icarus]

I disagree. Words are not the cause of violence or conflicts and such. It is what is behind the words, what already exists and is only expressed by words. Words are only symbols of our feelings.

Even if the argument is totally random, and completely idiotic, the perquisite for such an event would be the stupid people participating. Again, people don't become stupid because of words.

Violence starts with much more complex things, usually events. Say a postal worker was fired. A stranger on the metro asks him for the time, and the ex-postman blows a 9mm chunk of hot lead into his face. It wasn't the stranger's question that caused the violence at all.

It's common for society, especially american society, to place blame on representative objects and not the actual sources of society's problems, and then attack those representative objects. Such examples: Rap industry, videogames, radical literature, pornography, the government, prostitutes, etc.

One great detriment that would be brought by restricting speech, is that we would then have no obvious way of recognizing what vices currently exist within that society.

[Oblongato]

Cause is too strong. Violence may start with words because the words trigger violence. But I agree that the violence does not occur without an existing situation to motivate it. I agree that all of the examples you listed as being attacked should be protected expression.

I also agree that we are better off letting people say what they think, even if it is not something that we particularly want to hear, because the alternative is to drive it (even further?) underground.

Speech has the potential to diffuse situations that could otherwise lead to violence. Expressing oneself, even if one is unable to convince the other, can have a cathartic effect, ideally leading to an "agreeing to disagree". Agreeing to disagree is a necessary skill in any civilized society.

[Haladras]

The United States has been terrible at the entire idea of free speech.

Many of us use it as convenience and bar certain people from getting up on the podium. For example, outcryers against the Bush regime...

Michael Moore's documentaries, such as Bowling for Columbine, have been rated 'R' despite the observation that they, and Bowling for Columbine in particular, have far less violence than even Ken Burns' "The War." This is, in effect, a censoring of free speech.

Now, considering the dire straits that the U.S. is in, do you think that lack of free speech has helped anything? I don't wish to be Americentric, but they're the biggest screw-ups on the globe right now. Sorry if I've offended anyone, but I happen to live here (unfortunately), so I would know. Fox news is a stellar example of suppression of free information, being as it is the fountainhead for die-hard Republican propaganda.

You also have to take into account the fact that you can't fully regulate free will. Human ingenuity and fallacy has often created small pockets of chance in which rebellion or insurrection can take seed. Someone from the top misses the signs and suddenly everything screws up. In the short term, it all works according to plan. But when you consider the decades succeeding this possible "information" coup, it is inevitable that this happen. It's like regulating the Internet: it's just not possible.

I can see how free speech can hurt, but I can also see its benefits as well within a mutual give and take relationship between the government and the rest of society. We check up on them, and they check up on us. Can it be improved? Indubitably. But would we be better or worse off if we gave it the cold shoulder? Probably not.

[Oblongato]

Actually, the U.S. hasn't been terrible at free speech. The examples you mention are not the result of anyone being silenced, they are the result of people using the means at their disposal to make their own voices heard, and not, logically enough, the voices of their opponents. Sure, there are examples of double standards here and there, but if you speak what is on your mind the police will not show up at your door to take you to a re-education camp. Speech in the U.S. is freer than most anywhere else in the world.

And OK, the U.S. is far from perfect - but the biggest screw ups in the world? Bigger than Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, North Korea etc. etc.? Maybe your point of view is not being represented as strongly as you would like, but I think your criticisms are maybe just a little over the top.

That said, you may be surprised to hear that I am generally critical of U.S. policy, despise George W. Bush (I merely dislike his father), and think Fox news is a huge load of codswallop. I also despise political correctness and support strengthening of free speech protections.

[UMSLdragon]

Violent behavior does often start with words. But it is also important that citizens learn not to be so easily offended, not so easily provoked by words. The old adage "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me" seems to be forgotten. And the world is a more dangerous place for it. Everyone - rappers, Muslims, animal rights activists, Christians, Jews - even Atheists - seem to be going around looking to be offended. And the tendency to become violent when offended is also becoming more marked, it seems, prominent recent examples being the calls for the murder of cartoonists by radical Muslims and rappers gunned down for a casual insult.

I would have to blame media for this. People learn what they see, correct? So, if everyone watches movies and un/knowingly does what some actor did in a movie could bring about certain qualities of violence. Anyone else see the connection. I know it's not a main connection, but there is one.

UMSL

[Haladras]

Yeah, I think the U.S. is even more terrible than those guys. First off, we have the lobbying to attack Iran even though it discontinued its nuclear program in 2003, then we have the entire kick to the teeth concerning Turkey (trying to force them to admit that they committed the Armenian genocide is a big and obvious blunder that we may never recover from), and the labeling of Iran, which was sympathetic to the terrorist attacks, as "an axis of evil", which started them off on a tirade which may just unite the countries in that area against us. If you start beating up and intimidating the other kids in the playground, don't be surprised if they gang up and corner you.

Then there's the global warming catastrophe in which the U.S. delegate was booed off the stage after rejecting the plan to limit fuel emissions.

Also, the military wastes money like it's no tomorrow. Apparently they've signed a 100,000 dollar contract with "WarpTel Physics" in order to develop...teleportation technology...

Terrible...

[Oblongato]

Oh please. Are there any countries that say the U.S. is o.k. that have a problem with the U.S.? Most of the countries that are in danger of sanctions or military reprisals are avowed foes of the U.S. or are harboring avowed foes of the U.S. Anyone else is practically invited to trade. Only if they want to, of course.

It would be idiotic of the U.S. to want a nuclear Iran, or a nuclear (enter fanatical rogue state name here). That said, I will not defend Bush administration foreign policy.

The business with Turkish genocide was of course much too late. The generation responsible for that (regardless of whether it was genocide or not) is dead or retired. Similarly, it makes no sense to hold modern-day Germans responsible for the holocaust. It is completely absurd to hold children responsible for acts committed by their fathers and mothers, or grandfathers and grandmothers.

I can only hope that the policies of the Bush administration are replaced as soon as possible, regarding the environment, and practically everything else.

As for the military wasting money, I only hope that there is some kind of scientific basis for their spending. If there is none, you are correct that it is waste. On the other hand, if it appears that there is significant potential, it would be foolish not to explore whatever potential there may be. Not to do so would mean guaranteed obsolescence. And I'd rather have American ideology as the dominant ideology (not necessarily Bush ideology) rather than, say, Taliban ideology.

I would have to blame media for this. People learn what they see, correct? So, if everyone watches movies and un/knowingly does what some actor did in a movie could bring about certain qualities of violence. Anyone else see the connection. I know it's not a main connection, but there is one.


Free speech does indeed have its price. People do indeed get ideas from the media or other sources in a society that embraces free speech. But before condemning that, consider the consequences of censorship.

[femoimal]

...the problem with turkish leadership and historians is that many deny the genocide, calling it relocation. Here we deal with an irksome property of speech: revisionism. Can you let people alter facts or history (well documented and full of resentment) freely and disseminate that false information ? I am not taking sides here, just asking the question.

[Oblongato]

That's another downside alright. I don't believe it is realistic to think that we can impose our version of things on another government, even if our evidence is better. The most we could do would be to collect as much evidence as possible ourselves and hope for a day when the entities now disseminating propaganda are more willing to look at it. Of course, we also have the option of defying them politically by officially thumbing our noses at their version. The question is, what will it accomplish?

[femoimal]

oblongato, there is currently a double trend: the first is to make new laws against racial/terror/hatred speech. The second is to invite the very same people whose speech inspires hate to talk their opinions out in organizations and large seminars . I think the President of Iran and some extreme right morons where invited in some US campuses but just made fools of themselves. That is, if you are stupid enough to alter facts a lot, you loose credibility and kind of limit yourself the damage you cause. That is, until education fails or breaks down to the point that no-one has enough knowledge to check the progress of revisionism.
Religious revisionism is at work now in the US and its very goal is to smash education to a shapeless pulp and thus open the door to unjustified, irrational and absurd claims. So, i my opinion and as it was stated sometime before in this thread, anybody can say anything, even offend and insult, but education will sort things out. No education means bringing in the law and the spanish inquisition...
.... no one expects the spanish inquisition !

[UMSLdragon]

IMO, education wouldn't sort it out. And just to stay on friendly terms (lol :P), what do you mean by "education" and who/what is the Religious Revisionism?

About altering facts: if you're high enough in power and do it for a while and such, blah blah blah, you've "changed history;" altered it, rewrote it, w/e. Thus, giving you such power over the unknown being you've "brianwashed." Great tactic... come to think of it... I'm scared now.

What if we were "fed" certain critiera and other important stuff left out? Like, John A. MacDonald was a drunk... Don't remember the source, but I think it's correct. How about some other scientists from the 1800s and such were actually christian. Or claimed christianity, yet in your science textbooks it's totally left out. Sure, you could argue that their beliefs are irrelevent, but it's facts that would defiantly make history class much more interesting... unless the "powers" controling the system are afraid of some sort of knowledge getting out... So sounds like a fiction novel. I like fiction :P Didn't like Davinchis Code though (ya, I can't speel :P)

Talk about power hungry... oh ya, that's where this world is at... well, the people in high political positions anyway (IMO)

UMSL