Jump to bottom

171 comments
1 debutaunt  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:16:45am

Reality rears its vile and disgusting head.

2 callahan23  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:19:01am

CONGRATULATIONS Aussie Dave!
Another one down.

3 Shug  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:19:18am

lock him up.
throw away the key

4 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:20:19am
5 debutaunt  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:20:39am

re: #3 Shug

lock him up.
throw away the key

Hoping he gets the 14 year maximum sentence.

6 Honorary Yooper  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:20:41am

Here's a bit on Fredrick Töben, via Wiki.

7 Anthony (Los Angeles)  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:21:13am

Granted, the guy is a slime, but criminalizing opinion is a scary Bad Thing(tm).

8 VegasRick  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:21:58am

The update video was posted here a few days ago. I think.

9 debutaunt  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:22:00am

re: #7 Anthony (Los Angeles)

Granted, the guy is a slime, but criminalizing opinion is a scary Bad Thing(tm).

I kind of like the idea of him having a captive audience.

10 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:22:16am

re: #4 Iron Fist

I don't know which is worse in this case the "hate speech" or the outlawing of the "hate speech". Two evils don't make a single good...

Fighting fascism with censorship. Yeah, that'll work. Seems to me it will only inflame the crazies (see Eurofascists and their American cheerleaders).

11 Kragar  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:22:33am

Damn that International Zionist Cabal!

////

Good work

12 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:22:50am

I disagree with speech laws but only to the point of inciting violence. It is easier to identify kooks when they're allowed to speak freely. But crossing the violence line should be met with zero tolerance.

13 Anthony (Los Angeles)  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:23:09am

re: #9 debutaunt

I kind of like the idea of him having a captive audience.

*rimshot!*

14 MrSilverDragon  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:23:10am

re: #3 Shug

lock him up.
throw away the key

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Cask of Amontillado here... too severe? Maybe, but still...

15 baier  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:23:39am

re: #7 Anthony (Los Angeles)

Granted, the guy is a slime, but criminalizing opinion is a scary Bad Thing(tm).

Agreed. Mixed emotions. Definitely the lowest form of scum, but worried about the wider implications of criminal charges for expression.
Kudos to outing the bastard, however!

16 Shug  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:23:50am

Wonder if Pat Buchanan would be arrested in Australia?

17 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:24:41am
18 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:24:53am

re: #14 MrSilverDragon

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Cask of Amontillado here... too severe? Maybe, but still...

Send him to the showers.
/(yes, this is sarc)

19 big steve  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:25:04am

well if he claims it's comedy, he could be the next host for the White Houst Correspondent dinner.

20 Honorary Yooper  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:25:23am

re: #6 Honorary Yooper

Here's a bit on Fredrick Töben, via Wiki.

Read the wrong Israellycool article. Although, it is good to see the above jerk sentenced for being an idiot.

Doing a quick search, this O'Connell guy seems to have a Facebook account and page. Anyone up to finding out what's on it?

21 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:25:28am

Sort of OT - I see an announcement and a link for a "tax protest" on the right side bar. Click on it and it talks about taking the Tea Party to Washington. Anyone know who the organizer is?

22 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:25:39am

Speech laws give rise to cryptic agendas. I would rather nazis speak freely so I know who they are, and can properly reject them.

23 baier  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:26:14am

re: #22 Sharmuta

Speech laws give rise to cryptic agendas. I would rather nazis speak freely so I know who they are, and can properly reject them.

Agreed, but this guy was hiding...maybe just to protect himself from prosecution.

24 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:27:07am

re: #21 Russkilitlover

Sort of OT - I see an announcement and a link for a "tax protest" on the right side bar. Click on it and it talks about taking the Tea Party to Washington. Anyone know who the organizer is?

[Link: 912dc.org...]

25 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:28:20am

re: #12 Sharmuta

I disagree with speech laws but only to the point of inciting violence. It is easier to identify kooks when they're allowed to speak freely. But crossing the violence line should be met with zero tolerance.

Does inciting violence need to be a direct call for action or applied after action has taken place? Ranting hateful stuff is ranting. Inciting violence must lead to action, mustn't it? Or else it's just speech.

26 Kragar  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:29:30am

As much as I support free speech, I think when it comes to this kind of hatred fueled historical revisionism, then I think people should be punished for it. Ignoring or changing the past makes it more likely such horrors will happen again. They cannot be allowed to distort what actually happened.

27 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:29:52am
28 smokefire  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:30:12am

re: #19 big steve

well if he claims it's comedy, he could be the next host for the White Houst Correspondent dinner.

.......slam dunk. Maybe Obama will smile at those comments too.

29 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:30:29am

Freedom of speech is people being able to say things we find most vile. How long will it be before being critical of President Hopeandchange will be considered hate?

30 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:30:35am

re: #24 Sharmuta

[Link: 912dc.org...]

Uh oh! From the comments

We have already committed to be speakers at our rally notable names such as, Rev Manning (Trinity Broadcasting Network), Dr.Mike Ritze ( Oklahoma State Representative), Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs),Ambassador Alan Keyes (tentative) Senator Randy Brogdon (Oklahoma), Dr Orly Taitz (Attorney) a key figure in several cases regarding Obama’s constitutional qualifications to be president, Mr. Lloyd Marcus (Singer & Song Writer), Joyce Kaufman (Radio talk show host from 850am WFTL Miami Florida, Chaim Ben Pesach (Speaker of the Jewish Task Force), Rolling Thunder, National Right To Life, The National Rifle Assoc. as well as musical entertainment and many other guest speakers that are proud Americans.

31 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:30:44am

re: #25 Russkilitlover

Does inciting violence need to be a direct call for action or applied after action has taken place? Ranting hateful stuff is ranting. Inciting violence must lead to action, mustn't it? Or else it's just speech.

I think it's probably different in countries where the people don't have the right of proper self-defense.

32 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:31:07am

re: #30 Russkilitlover

UGH!

33 alegrias  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:31:17am

re: #21 Russkilitlover

Sort of OT - I see an announcement and a link for a "tax protest" on the right side bar. Click on it and it talks about taking the Tea Party to Washington. Anyone know who the organizer is?

* * **
Don't know but I'm going to the next DC Tea Party.

Pissed off taxpayers knocked off two democrats here 5 miles from DC last week, so talking about high taxes and highspending democrats works against voter apathy.

34 J.S.  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:31:43am

I'd have to read what the "racist villification" laws are all about -- and if it simply criminalizes speech qua speech, then I'm not a huge fan...(in Canada we have our own version of the Thought Police in the form of the HRCs, and it's not a "good thing.")

35 callahan23  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:31:54am

And Israellycool is a Lizard.
If ever he would appear more often in comments he'd have more Karma (69). But his spinoff links posted is impressive (1,249).
You go Aussie Dave. Woot.

re: #6 Honorary Yooper

Here's a bit on Fredrick Töben, via Wiki.

When you posted your comment I knew right away that Gerald Fredrick Töben is German, what a disgrace of a man. Retch.

36 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:32:30am

re: #33 alegrias

* * **
Don't know but I'm going to the next DC Tea Party.

Pissed off taxpayers knocked off two democrats here 5 miles from DC last week, so talking about high taxes and highspending democrats works against voter apathy.

You want to go see pamela?

37 Kragar  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:32:41am

re: #27 Iron Fist

Hate speech laws by their very nature beg to be abused. Take the example of Steyn in Canada. In the end he won, but the potential was there. When the State starts deciding, in a general way, what it is legal to say and think, bad things are going to come of it.

All hate crimes are bullshit. A crime is a crime.

38 Anthony (Los Angeles)  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:32:43am

re: #14 MrSilverDragon

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Cask of Amontillado here... too severe? Maybe, but still...

I have to admit, the "amontillado solution" is one of several ends I've considered for bin Laden.

39 smokefire  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:32:46am

re: #29 Cannadian Club Akbar

Freedom of speech is people being able to say things we find most vile. How long will it be before being critical of President Hopeandchange will be considered hate?

Where have you been?
It already has been considered hate speach.

40 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:33:03am

re: #32 Sharmuta

UGH!

I think I'll send the organizers a strongly worded letter about their "champions."

41 Anthony (Los Angeles)  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:33:36am

re: #16 Shug

Wonder if Pat Buchanan would be arrested in Australia?

I'd be tempted to make an exception in his case.

42 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:34:09am

re: #40 Russkilitlover

I think I'll send the organizers a strongly worded letter about their "champions."

There's no way in hell I'd ever attend a rally where pamela was a scheduled speaker.

43 alegrias  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:34:18am

re: #36 Sharmuta

You want to go see pamela?

** * *
Sorry Sharm, don't know who "pamela" is, nor many of the people you talk about.

44 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:34:46am

re: #39 smokefire

OK, how long unlit we are sitting in the pokey?

45 Eowyn2  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:34:47am

I dislike the effort to keep these people quiet. They are not going to stop being assholes and spouting filth. If they are pushed into backrooms and back alleys and 'private' clubs, the police et al will have a harder time finding them when all hell breaks loose.


Know your enemy.

46 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:35:11am

re: #29 Cannadian Club Akbar

Freedom of speech is people being able to say things we find most vile. How long will it be before being critical of President Hopeandchange will be considered hate?

You mean it isn't already?
/
But saying gays shouldn't be married is considered hate speech, even if it is still technically legal.

47 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:35:24am

Yes, I would rather the Australian government put this money and energy into funding refutations of these creepizoids than putting them in jail. Educate the people, then men like this will get no traction. Teach the people how to critically evaluate historical claims, and they'll see right through it.

Make the deniers look like fools--shouldn't be too hard.

48 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:35:32am

re: #44 Cannadian Club Akbar

PIMF...until

49 Desert Dog  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:35:40am

re: #29 Cannadian Club Akbar

Freedom of speech is people being able to say things we find most vile. How long will it be before being critical of President Hopeandchange will be considered hate?

He'll be here in Tempe today, anything you want to ask him for you? I want to know why he always arrives in Phoenix in the middle of freaking rush hour and shuts down the busiest corridor in the state for hours.

50 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:35:51am

re: #43 alegrias

** * *
Sorry Sharm, don't know who "pamela" is, nor many of the people you talk about.

Alrighty then. Enjoy the nazi apologists.

51 J.S.  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:36:27am

re: #41 Anthony (Los Angeles)

I think you should use a sarc tag...(there's been a great deal of people trying/attempting to criminalize political opinions -- and it's going on on both sides, right and left. I just don't like, at all, the idea that political speech should turn a person into a criminal...)

52 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:36:59am

re: #47 EmmmieG

I really like your new avatar.

53 smokefire  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:37:34am

If they are pushed into backrooms and back alleys and 'private' clubs, and the odd so called Christian churches. I.E. Rev. Wright You will not have any trouble finding them.

54 alegrias  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:37:34am

OT

The Pope told the Palestinians what they wanted to hear.
Who is the idiot who writes his speeches to pander to antisemites?

55 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:37:46am

re: #49 Desert Dog

Ask him why he is gonna tax beer, smokes, cokes and chips.

56 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:37:58am

Atlantis is close to capturing Hubble.

They'll be switching to live TV shortly.

NASA TV.

57 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:38:56am

re: #42 Sharmuta

There's no way in hell I'd ever attend a rally where pamela was a scheduled speaker.

You can click on the Freedom Works link and contact them via email. I just did and will let y'all know if I receive a reply.

(Good thing KT is not here, I think he'd blow a gasket.)

58 Curtain of Oz  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:39:53am

re: #50 Sharmuta

Is it the general assumption in this blog that anything related to the Tea Parties are fringe? Undesirable? Nut-job?

59 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:39:59am

re: #52 Sharmuta

I really like your new avatar.

Actually, that was my original avatar. I brought it back for mother's day.

60 Shug  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:40:05am

re: #56 jcm

got the pic up now.

200 feet

61 alegrias  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:40:09am

OT
Obama's going to announce whether he does or does not release more Abu Ghraiby pictures shortly.

62 Desert Dog  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:40:39am

re: #55 Cannadian Club Akbar

Ask him why he is gonna tax beer, smokes, cokes and chips.

Well, someone has to pay for all this spending.....why not beer drinkers, smokers, coke drinkers and snack food enthusiasts? But, he's not stopping there. If you have a job, make any investments, own a business, or somehow manage to eek out an income, you are also on the list of people he wants to steal money from.

63 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:40:51am

re: #54 alegrias

OT

The Pope told the Palestinians what they wanted to hear.
Who is the idiot who writes his speeches to pander to antisemites?

Maybe they found something for that "bishop" to do now.
See my post on the previous thread.
Israel should inform him that since he thinks walls are no good, they will remove all their security from him.

64 ConservatismNow!  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:40:52am

re: #37 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

All hate crimes are bullshit. A crime is a crime.

And all violent crimes are hate crimes.

65 VegasRick  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:41:36am

re: #58 Curtain of Oz

Is it the general assumption in this blog that anything related to the Tea Parties are fringe? Undesirable? Nut-job?

Not to me. I attended olne on 4/15.

66 alegrias  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:41:39am

OT
Pres. Obama OPPOSES release of Detainee Photos

Fox News

67 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:41:56am
68 Kragar  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:42:10am

re: #64 ConservatismNow!

And all violent crimes are hate crimes.

Ed Zachary

69 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:42:11am

re: #58 Curtain of Oz

Is it the general assumption in this blog that anything related to the Tea Parties are fringe? Undesirable? Nut-job?

I'm not saying anything about the tea parties except this one being advertised in the side bar has scheduled a fascist enabler to speak.

70 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:42:47am

re: #62 Desert Dog

Gonna start growing my own tabbackie and making my own vodka. I don't need chips.

71 alegrias  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:43:06am

re: #63 Kosh's Shadow

Maybe they found something for that "bishop" to do now.
See my post on the previous thread.
Israel should inform him that since he thinks walls are no good, they will remove all their security from him.

* * * *
Agree, the Pope should go visit where jihadists behead people who disagree.

72 Teh Flowah  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:43:30am

re: #7 Anthony (Los Angeles)

Granted, the guy is a slime, but criminalizing opinion is a scary Bad Thing(tm).

Agreed. As long as he wasn't inciting violence or taking action himself, he should really be allowed to say whatever he wants. But that doesn't mean anyone has to listen. He's just the crazy guy on the street corner muttering to himself.

73 Desert Dog  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:43:30am

re: #58 Curtain of Oz

Is it the general assumption in this blog that anything related to the Tea Parties are fringe? Undesirable? Nut-job?

It is certainly not unanimous, but Charles is not fond of them at all. Many lizards attended them though.

74 jorline  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:43:39am

re: #61 alegrias

OT
Obama's going to announce whether he does or does not release more Abu Ghraiby pictures shortly.

Hot on the heals of whether he does or does not release the pictures of the NYC flyover.
I'm betting he will release them and make his base happy.

75 Ben Hur  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:43:44am

Hugo Chavez launches mobile phone with rude name

Not surprisingly, it is a very small phone.

76 Code Red 21  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:43:53am

He is most definitely a despicable person and a slime ball but I am against hate speech laws. Unless someone is trying to specifically incite violence against another human being this sort of thing can be used against any one of us if someone else decides they don't like what we say. Who do you trust to be the judge?

77 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:43:53am

re: #58 Curtain of Oz

Is it the general assumption in this blog that anything related to the Tea Parties are fringe? Undesirable? Nut-job?

I think the general opinion is that the far-right, Paulian, Eurofascist supports are trying their darndest to worm their way into the protests by normal folks with real anger about the direction of our country. They are hijackers and they are still being pandered to as conservatives spokespeople.

78 Ben Hur  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:44:39am

Anybody else spot the irony of the Pope criticizing Israel's barrier, than having to ride off in a bullet/bomb proof Pope Mobile?

79 jorline  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:44:57am

re: #66 alegrias

OT
Pres. Obama OPPOSES release of Detainee Photos

Fox News

They will still get out and PBO will yell LEAK!

80 eddiebear  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:45:13am

re: #29 Cannadian Club Akbar

Uh-oh! Can we even mention that?

81 Desert Dog  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:45:34am

re: #75 Ben Hur

Hugo Chavez launches mobile phone with rude name

Not surprisingly, it is a very small phone.

He was the motivation for the phone, no doubt. He is a man that is a giant one (but has a teeny one himself)

82 doppelganglander  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:45:49am

I am very much against hate crime and hate speech laws. Obviously Australia doesn't have the first amendment, so I suppose they can do what they please, but I pray for the day our Supreme Court strikes down every one of these unconstitutional monstrosities. Some animals are NOT more equal than others.

83 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:45:58am

re: #78 Ben Hur

Anybody else spot the irony of the Pope criticizing Israel's barrier, than having to ride off in a bullet/bomb proof Pope Mobile?


From my 63:


Israel should inform him that since he thinks walls are no good, they will remove all their security from him.
84 alegrias  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:46:37am

I took my tax protest to the voting booth and helped toss two hightaxin' dems.

I feel good, like a tax protester should.

85 Land Shark  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:47:06am

I read the article at IsraeliCool and the guy faces a maximum of 14 years in prison. Ouch!

Now, if he had advocated violence I would be firmly in the lock him up and throw the key away mode, but based on the article he didn't do that. I know Holocaust deniers are essentially lying slime, and one must respect the laws of another country, but this is a travesty of justice in my opinion. Locking up someone for having a disgusting or wrong opinion just isn't right. Once you start down that road, it becomes easier for any speech not "approved" to be banned and or suppressed. And easier to lock them up as well.

Besides, I'd rather have these slime balls out in the open, just so we know who they are.

86 Kragar  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:47:07am

re: #75 Ben Hur

Hugo Chavez launches mobile phone with rude name

Not surprisingly, it is a very small phone.

"I can see the day where evey Venezulean goes around with a dick in his ear."

87 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:48:06am

I find the glee and passing out candy over this disturbing.

Wait till the first infidel is sentenced under this law for, say, defending the Crusades. People will be whistling a different tune.

88 callahan23  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:48:17am

re: #75 Ben Hur

Hugo Chavez launches mobile phone with rude name

Not surprisingly, it is a very small phone.

LOL. In the article it is revealed what the name of that cheap and small mobile phone is:

"...the Vergatorio's name has its origins in a Venezuelan slang term for penis."

Great LOL's.

89 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:48:41am

re: #42 Sharmuta

There's no way in hell I'd ever attend a rally where pamela was a scheduled speaker.

Maybe she's going to get up in front of everyone and do a huge mea culpa for her support of Eurofascists and declare that she now sees their evil ways and for that she thanks Charles Johnson very, very much. Ya think?

90 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:48:49am

re: #86 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

"I can see the day where evey Venezulean goes around with a dick in his ear."

Well, they already have a dick tater.

91 Ben Hur  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:49:51am

re: #83 Kosh's Shadow


Ahhh the irony.

Like when the UK spend gazillions after 9/11 turning their consulate in "East" Jerusalem into a bunker, while criticizing and pressuring Israel.

92 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:50:03am

re: #90 Kosh's Shadow

re: #90 Kosh's Shadow

Well, they already have a dick tater.

Would his son be a dick tater tot?

93 Kragar  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:50:57am

re: #90 Kosh's Shadow

Well, they already have a dick tater.

Hugo's first phonecall:

"Twat was that? I c*nt hear you! I got an ear infucktion while screwbadiving. I think I need to go to the dicktor for some peniscillin."

94 gander  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:51:22am

I don't like it. Not one little bit.
One man's hate speech is another man's speaking truth to power. Laws such as this are always enforced subjectively. We all know that it is perfectly acceptable to preach hate as long as you are a practitioner of certain protected religious groups. We also know that racist speech is acceptable as long as it is directed towards people originating in certain northern latitudes, or spoken towards anyone by people of recognized victim groups.

95 debutaunt  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:51:23am

re: #62 Desert Dog

Well, someone has to pay for all this spending.....why not beer drinkers, smokers, coke drinkers and snack food enthusiasts? But, he's not stopping there. If you have a job, make any investments, own a business, or somehow manage to eek out an income, you are also on the list of people he wants to steal money from.

Please use the word speculator instead of the above old-fashioned words.

96 Ben Hur  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:53:41am

re: #21 Russkilitlover

Sort of OT - I see an announcement and a link for a "tax protest" on the right side bar. Click on it and it talks about taking the Tea Party to Washington. Anyone know who the organizer is?

SATAN.

97 ConservatismNow!  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:54:39am

re: #77 Russkilitlover

I think the general opinion is that the far-right, Paulian, Eurofascist supports are trying their darndest to worm their way into the protests by normal folks with real anger about the direction of our country. They are hijackers and they are still being pandered to as conservatives spokespeople.

In the same way that a lot of the Iraq War protests were attended by people with genuine grievances. But in that case, the protests were organized by people with less than stellar motives. It's sad when the message is lost because the C.H.U.Ds choose to mingle with the protesters.

98 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:54:59am

re: #96 Ben Hur

re: #96 Ben Hur

SATAN.

STAN

99 zombie  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:55:33am

re: #4 Iron Fist

I don't know which is worse in this case the "hate speech" or the outlawing of the "hate speech". Two evils don't make a single good...

I totally agree.

While I hold absolutely no sympathy for that Jew-hating scumbag, I am equally disturbed by the anti-free-speech laws in many of these countries. Thank heaven above I live in the Untied States, where my freedom of thought and expression cannot be flippantly curtailed at the whim of a bureaucrat.

While I think Holocaust deniers and ignoramus anti-Semites are the lowest of the low, I still prefer to live in a country where they are free to speak, no matter how vile I consider their words. Because as soon as some speech is made illegal, it's a very slippery slope for other topics to be made illegal. And before you know it, some pandering tyrant gets elected president or is elevated to the Supreme Court and suddenly your opinion, whatever it is, is made illegal too. And by then, it will be too late to complain.

100 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:55:42am

re: #58 Curtain of Oz

I attended both Tea Party protests in City Hall Park, Manhattan. Charles has long warned that Ron Paul's acolytes either control, or are trying to control, the Tea Party movement. Ron Paul has close connections with neo-Nazis and 9/11 Truthers. He's bad news, and I've urged libertarians to dump him.

101 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:55:48am
102 Satan  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:56:23am

re: #96 Ben Hur

SATAN.


I did not have political relations with that, that Tea Party!

103 israellycool  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:56:46am

Thanks Charles!

It should be noted that Andrew Bolt also publicized it in his column, so he certainly deserves a mention. If it wasn't for both Tim and Andrew, I suspect our antisemitic friend would still be roaming the streets, harassing and assaulting people.

Actually, that's a key point. Whatever your position on hate speech, O'Connell filmed himself ASSAULTING a young Jewish man (or at least admitted to it on camera). That is most certainly a crime.

104 Anthony (Los Angeles)  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:57:16am

re: #51 J.S.

I think you should use a sarc tag...(there's been a great deal of people trying/attempting to criminalize political opinions -- and it's going on on both sides, right and left. I just don't like, at all, the idea that political speech should turn a person into a criminal...)

Good point. Consider it /sarc'd.

105 zombie  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:57:32am

Thank heaven above I live in the Untied States = Thank heaven above I live in the United States

Sheesh. Second time I've done that typo this year.

106 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:58:24am
107 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:58:29am

re: #12 Sharmuta

Inciting to riot remains a crime.

108 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:58:36am
109 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:59:20am

re: #101 buzzsawmonkey

Really? I was thinking of producing and marketing Shoulder Chips™.

Since it seems these days everyone is walking around with at least one, I figure there's gotta be a market.

Make twice as many for the left shoulder. They aren't happy unless they are angry.

110 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:59:49am

re: #105 zombie

Thank heaven above I live in the Untied States = Thank heaven above I live in the United States

Sheesh. Second time I've done that typo this year.

dylexics untie!

111 ConservatismNow!  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:59:59am

re: #105 zombie

All I could think of was something related to Californians being laid back in their wardrobe. Untied. Yeah...

112 zombie  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:00:07am

re: #103 israellycool

Thanks Charles!

It should be noted that Andrew Bolt also publicized it in his column, so he certainly deserves a mention. If it wasn't for both Tim and Andrew, I suspect our antisemitic friend would still be roaming the streets, harassing and assaulting people.

Actually, that's a key point. Whatever your position on hate speech, O'Connell filmed himself ASSAULTING a young Jewish man (or at least admitted to it on camera). That is most certainly a crime.

I have no problem with his being arrested for assaulting people.

However, I remain disturbed about laws forbidding people for expressing their opinion, no matter how vile disgusting and factually incorrect that opinion may be.

However, Australia is Australia, so I have no say in the matter!

113 justabill  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:01:07am

re: #35 callahan23

And Israellycool is a Lizard.
If ever he would appear more often in comments he'd have more Karma (69). But his spinoff links posted is impressive (1,249).
You go Aussie Dave. Woot.


When you posted your comment I knew right away that Gerald Fredrick Töben is German, what a disgrace of a man. Retch.

Yes, but is he a "Real German"? A "Real German" would never...Ah.. oh...

nevermind.

114 israellycool  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:01:17am

re: #35 callahan23

True, I do not visit the comments that often, but I have been a daily reader since the early days, and Charles and I have had "offline" correspondence during this time. And my reason for not visiting the comments more often is I maintain a liveblog almost every day, I have a demanding day job, and I have a wife + 4 kids. So I simply don't have the time.

To be frank, this whole "number of comments vs number of links" approach of some of you is misleading. Before the spinoff links feature, there were those who posted in the comments links to their blog posts. These count as comments, even though they are really like spinoff links.

115 eddiebear  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:01:50am

Sorry to go OT, Meanwhile, a moonbat gets schooled by Uncle Jimbo

116 callahan23  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:02:10am

re: #103 israellycool

Thanks Charles!

It should be noted that Andrew Bolt also publicized it in his column, so he certainly deserves a mention. If it wasn't for both Tim and Andrew, I suspect our antisemitic friend would still be roaming the streets, harassing and assaulting people.

Actually, that's a key point. Whatever your position on hate speech, O'Connell filmed himself ASSAULTING a young Jewish man (or at least admitted to it on camera). That is most certainly a crime.

Here you are, THANK YOU and Andrew Bolt for your excellent work.
I love your site.
You are a real 'mensch'.
{Aussie Dave/Israellycool}

117 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:02:49am

re: #105 zombie

Thank heaven above I live in the Untied States = Thank heaven above I live in the United States

Sheesh. Second time I've done that typo this year.

Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.

118 justabill  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:04:10am

re: #101 buzzsawmonkey

Really? I was thinking of producing and marketing Shoulder Chips™.

Since it seems these days everyone is walking around with at least one, I figure there's gotta be a market.

I don't know, do you think people need more chips on their sholders?

119 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:05:29am
120 israellycool  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:06:53am

re: #116 callahan23

Cheers mate

121 Mad Mullah  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:06:58am

I am going to have to stick up for the Aussie Antisemite. Hate Speech is relative depending upon who is judging and those same laws can be used against people who are not anti-semites or nazis or holocaust deniers and they have already been used in certain messed up countries like Canada and in a few places in Europe.

I also think that it's a better idea to not have those kind of people underground, let them post their views or videos for all to see and hear. I can definitely see Anti-Jihadists and anybody who dares speak a bad word about the 'peaceful' religion of Islam being arrested left and right if certain people had their way.

Just yesterday on this blog, there was a paranoid lunatic stalker who was seriously accusing me of being a Nazi. Nope, I don't believe in hate speech laws because it's too easy for them to be used in the wrong way by people with dishonest intentions and against the wrong people.

122 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:07:11am

re: #119 Iron Fist

They just need a cup of dip for the other shoulder.

What if the person already is a dip?

123 Altermite  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:07:14am

re: #43 alegrias

** * *
Sorry Sharm, don't know who "pamela" is, nor many of the people you talk about.

Pamela has the distinction of having been invited to speak at a rally (and accepting!) held by a fascist party in Belgium, and of having defended them, though she did bail on speaking, to her credit. She still defends them, though, and claims that they are being smeared.

124 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:09:01am
125 Altermite  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:09:04am

re: #121 Mad Mullah

I am going to have to stick up for the Aussie Antisemite. Hate Speech is relative depending upon who is judging and those same laws can be used against people who are not anti-semites or nazis or holocaust deniers and they have already been used in certain messed up countries like Canada and in a few places in Europe.

I also think that it's a better idea to not have those kind of people underground, let them post their views or videos for all to see and hear. I can definitely see Anti-Jihadists and anybody who dares speak a bad word about the 'peaceful' religion of Islam being arrested left and right if certain people had their way.

Just yesterday on this blog, there was a paranoid lunatic stalker who was seriously accusing me of being a Nazi. Nope, I don't believe in hate speech laws because it's too easy for them to be used in the wrong way by people with dishonest intentions and against the wrong people.

Aussie Dave just mentioned that the man assaulted at least one jewish fellow, and publically admitted to it. Thats not a free speech issue.

126 Mad Mullah  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:11:08am

re: #125 Altermite

Aussie Dave just mentioned that the man assaulted at least one jewish fellow, and publically admitted to it. Thats not a free speech issue.

If there's violence involved then that's a whole different story of course. In that case, lock him up and let him get molested every day in jail for all I care.

127 Sunlight  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:12:37am

re: #56 jcm

Atlantis is close to capturing Hubble.

They'll be switching to live TV shortly.

NASA TV.

They're grapping it right now! Thanks for the link. I would do a + ding, but it doesn't seem to be working right now. This is way cool! No roosters, though.

128 abolitionist  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:13:21am

I'd very much prefer all the crazies, extremists, kooks, and especially genocidal maniacs be easily identifiable. If we shut them up, don't let them publish pamphlets, books, articles, videos, etc, that's much harder.

Maybe if we could persuade all the a**holes to wear an obvious mark on their foreheads, or an asterisk on yellow armbands, or ...
/

129 looking closely  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:13:29am

I'm with Iron fist here.

While its hard to feel sorry for the ones prosecuted under these anti-hate speech laws, these are always a slippery slope, and in general, I think its better to let the Jew-haters out themselves publically.

130 J.S.  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:16:08am

re: #121 Mad Mullah

doesn't even have to be people using hate speech laws with dishonest intent -- sometimes it's when "discussions" just get out-of-hand (someone starts making inflammatory remarks or, someone misinterprets remarks as "inflammatory", and it escalates). Ezra Levant has written about how two anonymous bloggers got into a tiff (talk about a lack of due process here -- the actual names of the bloggers were never known), but they took their "complaint" to an HRC. The HRC wanted to do a "live" hook-up with the parties concerned...but, there was a "no-show" -- the irate bloggers didn't show up! (this was all being done at taxpayers' expense, of course)... Anyway, it's all detailed in Ezra Levant's book, "Shakedown." Great read...

131 looking closely  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:16:23am

re: #125 Altermite

Aussie Dave just mentioned that the man assaulted at least one jewish fellow, and publically admitted to it. Thats not a free speech issue.


Well, that's a whole other thing.

Assault is and should be a crime.

As a relevant issue here, AFAIK, assault doesn't have to be an actual physical attack, I believe issuing a credible threat of violence (it could be verbal, or non-verbal) is by definition assault.

132 Curtain of Oz  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:16:23am

re: #100 quickjustice

I go on a Ron Paul blog from time to time to give people a hard time. Not hard to do. However, I do find in fascinating how the right-leaning community is looking to define the movement. The Ron Paul nuts are isolationists at best. I have an issue with the fiscal plans, the spending, the gov't intervention, the debt, but I don't want to see our military squeezed. I like the idea of the tea parties, but the problem is, who are we partying with?

133 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:20:08am

re: #123 Altermite

Pamela has the distinction of having been invited to speak at a rally (and accepting!) held by a fascist party in Belgium, and of having defended them, though she did bail on speaking, to her credit. She still defends them, though, and claims that they are being smeared.

She also subscribes to the school of thought that any crime, misdemeanor or instance of bad table manners committed by a Muslim is evidence of the irredeemable nature of Islam as a whole. Thus a Muslim man who kills his wife in a fit of jealousy is an "honor killer" motivated by Islam (not, of course, by the universal macho ethos that says you own your woman) and evidence for Islam's ultimate evil. An Italian guy in the Bronx in a wife-beater undershirt and three gold chains does the same? He's just a jerk. Or maybe a secret Muslim.

And her fellow speaker at this event, Alan Keyes (tentative), is the right-wing male version of Cynthia McKinney.

Anyone who attends this "tea party" knowing who the speakers are is supporting lunacy.

134 looking closely  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:20:15am

re: #132 Curtain of Oz

I like the idea of the tea parties, but the problem is, who are we partying with?


I think its for you to find out, by talking to the other ones at the party. Presumably you have all brains and mouths and might discuss why you are there.

On Ron Paul nuttism. . .he may be the instigator behind the "tea parties" but just because the other 90% of his ideas are kooky, that doesn't ipso facto mean that being against gov't expansion is wrong.

135 J.S.  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:21:11am

re: #131 looking closely

yeah. in the States it's "assault and battery." the assault part refers to the verbal threat of violence, while the battery part to the actual act of violence...(hitting someone, for example.)

136 callahan23  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:24:02am

Woot, the beautiful Megan McArthur grappled the Hubble Space Telescope.

137 TS  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:26:26am

Can't agree with hate speech laws. No matter if I don't like what they are saying.

138 looking closely  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:27:29am

re: #103 israellycool

Whatever your position on hate speech, O'Connell filmed himself ASSAULTING a young Jewish man (or at least admitted to it on camera). That is most certainly a crime.


Filming yourself admitting a criminal assault is also a sign of arrogance/stupidity bordering on insanity.

On "hate" crimes, again, hate is an emotion. The State can make having feelings a crime, but it simply cannot legislate emotions out of existence.

As a secondary matter, in my opinion people should be free to hate (or love) whomever they want. State intervention only makes sense when violence is being threatened.

139 Altermite  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:28:20am

re: #132 Curtain of Oz

I go on a Ron Paul blog from time to time to give people a hard time. Not hard to do. However, I do find in fascinating how the right-leaning community is looking to define the movement. The Ron Paul nuts are isolationists at best. I have an issue with the fiscal plans, the spending, the gov't intervention, the debt, but I don't want to see our military squeezed. I like the idea of the tea parties, but the problem is, who are we partying with?

I don't like the idea of seeing our military squeezed, as such, but some budgeting might do more good than harm. There are some areas where our equipment is way fancier than it needs to be, and the marginal benefit from the additional investment drops to almost nothing, especially against our low-tech foes.

I remember reading something by Robert Gates where he mentioned that in several cases we have very limited amounts of equipment because research is given as much money as they want to develop something fancy with bells, and when it comes down to it, we need more of the basic thing, rather than more bells. I think the example he gave was of planes- the aircraft that met the needs could have cost as little as 20% of what it wound up costing, but there were so many things added to every single one that the cost went way up, and they wound up with 1/5 as many planes. Now, some planes needed one or two of those parts, and others needed another few, but they wound up just putting them all on everything.

140 Samurai  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:29:51am

While I don't in any way support or agree with that guy's views or statements, am I the only one that finds the possibility of 14 years in prison for simply stating his (vile) opinions more than a little frightening? What other speech will be outlawed next? I'm afraid this is the way Obama's America is headed...

141 Altermite  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:30:02am

of course, that isn't what the RPers are advocating at all.

142 SixDegrees  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:31:33am

re: #4 Iron Fist

I don't know which is worse in this case the "hate speech" or the outlawing of the "hate speech". Two evils don't make a single good...

True. But although the US has by far the most tolerant laws concerning speech, even here there are limits, and they tend to follow similar contours to laws in other countries that impose limits on speech. In this case, the crime is somewhat analogous to laws in the US against inciting a riot; the underlying theory is that racial vilification can lead to more destructive societal events than are tolerable to society as a whole. Laws restricting speech are even more strict in Europe, where the memory of the consequences of allowing vilification of ethnic groups is all too current and pervasive.

I'm not certain I like where the limits are placed in other countries, but the idea that there should be limits of some sort is upheld here already and is quite understandable.

143 SixDegrees  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:38:56am

re: #140 Samurai

While I don't in any way support or agree with that guy's views or statements, am I the only one that finds the possibility of 14 years in prison for simply stating his (vile) opinions more than a little frightening? What other speech will be outlawed next? I'm afraid this is the way Obama's America is headed...

According to the blog,

O’Connell has been charged with conduct intended to incite racial animosity or racist harassment.

This is similar to US laws making incitement to riot illegal; Federal penalties allow for up to five years imprisonment in such cases. It sounds as though it was a bit more than simply stating an opinion, although there aren't many details on precisely what was said and done.

If he was actively attempting to goad a crowd into committing violence against a person or property, he would be found guilty in the US as noted. Hard to say, too, precisely what the Australian law is in this case, but it doesn't sound so different from the reasonable restrictions on speech in place in America.

144 abolitionist  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:41:44am

re: #135 J.S.

yeah. in the States it's "assault and battery." the assault part refers to the verbal threat of violence, while the battery part to the actual act of violence...(hitting someone, for example.)

No. Assault is an action toward another person, whether or not any contact is made, and perhaps not even involving harmful intent. Knocking someone's hat off is assault (and perhaps battery too). Intentionally swerving your car toward a pedestrian or an 18-wheeler is assault. Extending your middle finger isn't.

Much of what people are inclined to call a verbal assault these days used to be called cursing, or public vulgarity, and typically was a misdemeanor violation of local or state laws. Calling such speech assault does violence to language. Now, if the speech involved a credible threat to serious bodily harm, it might qualify as assault. Ex, Prepare to die, mofo.

145 J.S.  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:42:30am

re: #142 SixDegrees

I read a study once (in a law journal) of someone who cataloged all the laws (this was in the United States), based purely on speech, which could potentially send the speaker to jail. (iirc, there were approx. 175 laws, falling into a number of different categories -- fraud, misrepresentation, lying under oath, threats, etc., etc. -- but the whole point was that the claim about some unlimited, absolutely unfettered, Free Speech code, where "one can say whatever one wants," was untrue.)

146 Curtain of Oz  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:45:14am

re: #139 Altermite

I like having the debate on where to produce efficiencies in our military. Talk to a Ron Paul nut and he wants to pull back to our borders. Regardless, under Obama, our forces won't be used in any way to justify the good. At this point he just wants to retreat and do damage control.

147 abolitionist  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:45:32am

re: #144 abolitionist

Apologies. Missed the verbal "threat of violence" bit.

148 Lynn B.  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:48:11am

re: #30 Russkilitlover

re: #24 Sharmuta

[Link: 912dc.org...]

Uh oh! From the comments:

We have already committed to be speakers at our rally notable names such as, Rev Manning (Trinity Broadcasting Network), Dr.Mike Ritze ( Oklahoma State Representative), Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs),Ambassador Alan Keyes (tentative) Senator Randy Brogdon (Oklahoma), Dr Orly Taitz (Attorney) a key figure in several cases regarding Obama’s constitutional qualifications to be president, Mr. Lloyd Marcus (Singer & Song Writer), Joyce Kaufman (Radio talk show host from 850am WFTL Miami Florida, Chaim Ben Pesach (Speaker of the Jewish Task Force), Rolling Thunder, National Right To Life, The National Rifle Assoc. as well as musical entertainment and many other guest speakers that are proud Americans.

That's quite a scary list of speakers. Chaim Ben Pesach?

JTF is run by the former national chairman of the Jewish Defense League, Victor Vancier, who is also commonly known as Chaim Ben Pesach, and previously as Chaim Ben Yosef. In October of 1987, he was sentenced to 10 years in Federal prison for taking part in a series of bombings in the New York area since 1984 to protest Soviet treatment of Jews.[2][3][4] The group defines itself as "fighting to save America and Israel from Islamic terrorism."[1] Unlike most Kahanist organizations, which take positions only on issues related to Israel, JTF also has an American agenda; it wishes to stop what it calls the "Third World invasion of America"[1] and is against America becoming what it calls a "Third World banana republic".[1] JTF's messages have also caused it to be condemned for alleged racism,[5][6] and has been condemned by the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.[7]

Yep. Fits right in.

149 SixDegrees  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:49:44am

re: #145 J.S.

I read a study once (in a law journal) of someone who cataloged all the laws (this was in the United States), based purely on speech, which could potentially send the speaker to jail. (iirc, there were approx. 175 laws, falling into a number of different categories -- fraud, misrepresentation, lying under oath, threats, etc., etc. -- but the whole point was that the claim about some unlimited, absolutely unfettered, Free Speech code, where "one can say whatever one wants," was untrue.)

Correct. The classic examples are: inciting to riot (already mentioned); inducing panic, as in yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre; and slander. There are certainly many other speech excursions that will easily land you in jail. Often, the safety of others or of society as a whole take precedence over individual freedom.

150 J.S.  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:50:35am

re: #144 abolitionist

well, according to a text I have titled, "You and the Law" (Canadian), I read:

The strict legal distinction between the terms assault and battery-- often linked or merged in court cases -- is this: "assault" describes the open threat of violence (brandinshing your fist undersomeone's nose) while "battery" involves the threat being put into anction. The latter requires actual physical contact...The law recognizes that you can be harmed in a mental as well as a physical way by someone who threatens violence as well as by someone who actually resorts to it."

There's also Wiki article...which reads: "Assault and battery is the combination of two violent crimes: assault (the threat of violence) and battery (physical violence). This legal distinction exists only in jurisdictions that distinguish assault as threatened violence rather than actual violence."

151 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:52:14am
152 looking closely  Wed, May 13, 2009 11:00:19am

re: #135 J.S.

yeah. in the States it's "assault and battery." the assault part refers to the verbal threat of violence, while the battery part to the actual act of violence...(hitting someone, for example.)


If I understand it correctly, assault is defined as a threatened or actual physical attack. Like any crime, there has to be intent, but the threat is defined by the perception of the person receiving it. (IE if they feel threatened, its a threat). The threat could be verbal, but it doesn't have to be.

For example, if I point at gun at you, that's assault, even if I don't pull the trigger. If I simply lift my fist into the air next to you, so long as you believe that I'm likely to hit you, that's also assault.

If I just stand next to you, and say, "I'm going to kick your ass", so long as you actually feel threatened by my words, again that's an assault.

In fact, I could just LOOK at you, and that look could be an assault, so long as you perceived that my look was threatening violence.

Now proving in a court of law in front of a jury of my peers that I *intended* my look to threaten violence could be problematic. . .unless of course I were stupid enough to document that intent by admitting it on a videotape.

153 looking closely  Wed, May 13, 2009 11:03:44am

re: #145 J.S.

I read a study once (in a law journal) of someone who cataloged all the laws (this was in the United States), based purely on speech, which could potentially send the speaker to jail. (iirc, there were approx. 175 laws, falling into a number of different categories -- fraud, misrepresentation, lying under oath, threats, etc., etc. -- but the whole point was that the claim about some unlimited, absolutely unfettered, Free Speech code, where "one can say whatever one wants," was untrue.)

Freedom of speech exists primarily for citizens to criticize the government, and in that sense, American citizens do enjoy tremendous latitude to say what they like.

But the concept of freedom of speech has NEVER meant (and was never intended to mean) that anybody can say anything they want without fear of legal consequences.

154 bj1126  Wed, May 13, 2009 11:12:06am

I hate things like this that make me defend a vile racist pig. Get him on assault charges but leave the thought crime out. It's one of the most slippery slopes around.

155 looking closely  Wed, May 13, 2009 11:19:29am

re: #144 abolitionist

No. Assault is an action toward another person, whether or not any contact is made, and perhaps not even involving harmful intent. Knocking someone's hat off is assault (and perhaps battery too). Intentionally swerving your car toward a pedestrian or an 18-wheeler is assault. Extending your middle finger isn't.


I don't know about every jurisdiction on the planet, but I'm pretty sure that just about everywhere in the USA (at least) the crime of assault requires intent.

You don't necessarily have to intend to cause actual harm, but you do have to intend to issue a threat. For example, lets say I point a rifle at you that I know to be unloaded. That's still assault, even though there is no actual physical danger of shooting.

Now lets say I've just cleaned said unloaded gun in my room, and while lifting it up to inspect the sights, I happen to point it at the window, just as you walk by outside.

I didn't even know you were there, but you see the gun and feel threatened. This is technically NOT as assault since there was no intent on my part to intimidate you.

156 abolitionist  Wed, May 13, 2009 11:28:18am

re: #150 J.S.

I suppose we are generally in agreement then. While I regret modern tendencies to consider any belligerent, coarse, or hateful speech as a "verbal assault," the broadening of the legal meaning of assault to mean threat, and implicitly including some specific kinds of speech is new to me. The problem is that threats are subjective.

I think there's significant risk of curtailing speech that prevents actual violence. By the new standards, the Fonzie character on Happy Days would not be a cool guy, but a criminal.

157 shortshrift  Wed, May 13, 2009 12:21:10pm

re: #107 quickjustice

Inciting to riot is a crime. The legal difficulty comes with how to determine criminal incitement when there is group of rioters jumping at the excuse to riot: the perpetually aggrieved Muslim "offendees" who are incited to riot at the publication of a novel, or cartoons, or citation of historical statements. These offendees threaten violent rioting because they are incited by criticism of Islam. The view that offending Islam is a legal incitement to riot, is becoming the norm e.g. the UN criminalizing of anti-religion (read, Islam) speech; Britain's Home Secretary banning anti-Islamist speakers (presumably as a balance to banning Islamists who quite explicitly and openly incite to riot );the removal from the public eye of "offensive" images (like the pig), or symbols of other religions in order to placate the offendees.
So we have a strange new criminal code: inciting to riot by advocating violent jihad is a crime, but not often enforced; inciting to riot by criticism of the advocacy of jihad may be a crime, and the public is self-censoring under threat of criminal punishment and under threat of riot; the inciters to riot (like Lord Ahmed) who threaten (promise) a riot should a critic of Islamism be allowed to speak, are not regarded as criminal at all.

158 gregmw  Wed, May 13, 2009 12:38:19pm

If disgusting, hateful speech is made illegal then we lose the opportunity to ridicule it and show it for what it is.

159 spartan5751  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:50:43pm

As asinine as his position may be, the taking of his rights to free speech (no matter how stupid) is an even greater crime. Who decides what is hate speech? Does the government now have the right to tell me what I should think? Feel? There have always been idiots in every generation - we should not take away their rights to free speech.

Now - their right to breed is a totally different question.

160 schnapp  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:27:10pm

He wasn't found by Tim Blair. I found the video because I was one of the two people attacked by this idiot. I sent it to my friend who was also attacked and it filtered through the community, eventually reaching Tim Blair and Israellycool.

161 israellycool  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:53:33pm

re: #160 schnapp

Were you othe young man who was actually hit by O'Connell?

If you read my blog post, I express uncertainty about whether the authorities found out about him from our blog posts, but state that the added exposure probably didn't hurt.

162 brennk2  Wed, May 13, 2009 8:10:13pm

I have to agree with those expressing concern over the criminalization of thought. Besides as was mentioned up thread it’s better to let these folks speak so they can identify themselves. As the saying goes – “Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".

One should also consider how things like this can get out-of-control. Take sexual harassment policies for example. One only needs to be accused of creating a ‘hostile environment’ to be guilty. One can create a hostile environment by simply staring too much in one direction. No thought given as to what one was actually thinking.

163 schnapp  Wed, May 13, 2009 8:11:07pm

No I wasn't him. I was just too speechless to say anything.
And I don't want you to get the wrong impression. I appreciate everything you have done. But two days after the incident I found the video on Daily Motion and it spread around the Perth Jewish community VERY quickley and interstate within a couple of days. If you want more info you are welcome to email me.

164 israellycool  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:16:58pm

re: #163 schnapp

I really don't care about getting any credit for this. I am just happy he is being charged, and would like it if he is charged for battery.

165 israellycool  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:17:36pm

re: #163 schnapp

Oh, and thank you for spreading the video around so it came to our attention!

166 schnapp  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:51:54pm

re: #165 israellycool

no problem. thanks for getting it out there more than the we ever could.

167 israellycool  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:50:20pm

re: #166 schnapp

I meant to ask you..were you the quiet friend in the video? If so, I assume you saw O'Connell hit your friend. Which means you could help put him behind bars.

168 ihateronpaul  Thu, May 14, 2009 7:25:52am

Everything he says is completely disgusting, but I think society is harmed when you start prosecuting thought crimes. What are they going to do next, charge people with "muslim bigotry" if they oppose jihad? It is a very slippery slope.

169 RhymesWithRight  Thu, May 14, 2009 3:08:45pm

re: #4 Iron Fist

As much as I hate to appear to take the side of this scumbag, I have to agree. After all, doesn't this sort of prosecution both shut down the free exchange of ideas (no matter how reprehensible the ideas are) AND legitimate efforts like those of the Muslim countries to make "defamation of Islam" a vioaltion of international law?

170 RhymesWithRight  Thu, May 14, 2009 3:14:28pm

re: #25 Russkilitlover

Does inciting violence need to be a direct call for action or applied after action has taken place? Ranting hateful stuff is ranting. Inciting violence must lead to action, mustn't it? Or else it's just speech.

Careful, this leads us very close to the notion some have advanced regarding the expansion of hate crime laws to include gays. What happens when Rev. Smith preaches against homosexuality from the pulpit and then one of the congregants, Mr. Jones, goes out and commits an act of violence against one of those engaged in the sin Rev. Jones condemned? Some would argue that Rev. Jones had engaged in incitement of a hate crime, which would itself be criminal.

I despise anti-Semites -- but do we want to make it illegal for them to speak because of what their words might lead someone to feel or believe -- or do, even if there is no direct advocacy of violence? Is it not better to let such folks speak, and to meet their hatred with strident condemnation instead?

171 ihateronpaul  Thu, May 14, 2009 9:06:39pm

re: #170 RhymesWithRight

why would you view gay people "below" any other group of people? or am I misinterpreting?


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 476 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1