Google backs fatwa with Cat Stevens?

[Dr. Medulla]

Yes, though in America we would normally wait for the for the intentions to be realized through criminal acts that are themselves prosecuted (except threats, conspiracy,etc.) The concept of prosecuting "ideas" however is generally viewed as un-American.

Holy fuck. I've stayed out of this, but this is just an astounding statement. Consider the treatment of anarchists, communists, and socialists, particularly in the last quarter of the nineteenth and first quarter of the twentieth centuries. Or the many pieces of federal legislation after WWII, especially the Smith Act, that outlawed the Communist Party. Or abolitionists in the antebellum South. Or interracial marriage. Or the laws on the books in many states that discriminate against atheists. American history is filled with official prosecution and persecution on the basis of ideas.

[Olaf]

I think the idea behind it is that if you're denying the Holocaust, it's usually with discriminatory intent.

Yes, though in America we would normally wait for the for the intentions to be realized through criminal acts that are themselves prosecuted (except threats, conspiracy,etc.) The concept of prosecuting "ideas" however is generally viewed as un-American. Hence, the debate arises whether burning an American flag is "speech" (sacrosanct) or criminal conduct. But jailing a mere author would be way to weird. That is why I am astonished to see American corporations supporting Cat Stevens.

Reminds me of :

"When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use." -Stalin

Which could be a good start for an album title.

You are making a very broad assumption on the basis of a very specific law which, as I said, I'm not happy with, but certainly must be seen in its historical context. Plus, as every law, it is subject to interpretation. As far as I know Irving has never been arrested in Germany while supporting his neo nazi affiliates.

[Olaf]

Yes, though in America we would normally wait for the for the intentions to be realized through criminal acts that are themselves prosecuted (except threats, conspiracy,etc.) The concept of prosecuting "ideas" however is generally viewed as un-American.

Holy fuck. I've stayed out of this, but this is just an astounding statement. Consider the treatment of anarchists, communists, and socialists, particularly in the last quarter of the nineteenth and first quarter of the twentieth centuries. Or the many pieces of federal legislation after WWII, especially the Smith Act, that outlawed the Communist Party. Or abolitionists in the antebellum South. Or interracial marriage. Or the laws on the books in many states that discriminate against atheists. American history is filled with official prosecution and persecution on the basis of ideas.

Someone should have told McCarthy how un-American his activities were.

[Dr. Medulla]

Yes, though in America we would normally wait for the for the intentions to be realized through criminal acts that are themselves prosecuted (except threats, conspiracy,etc.) The concept of prosecuting "ideas" however is generally viewed as un-American.

Holy fuck. I've stayed out of this, but this is just an astounding statement. Consider the treatment of anarchists, communists, and socialists, particularly in the last quarter of the nineteenth and first quarter of the twentieth centuries. Or the many pieces of federal legislation after WWII, especially the Smith Act, that outlawed the Communist Party. Or abolitionists in the antebellum South. Or interracial marriage. Or the laws on the books in many states that discriminate against atheists. American history is filled with official prosecution and persecution on the basis of ideas.

Someone should have told McCarthy how un-American his activities were.

Well, he was eventually asked whether he possessed any sense of decency.

[darter]

America has been imperfect and unjust throughout history but in the context of free speech it has done very well indeed, especially in modern times. The rabble (uh, legislative branch) will always be there but the U.S. Supreme Court has held them at bay.

From wikipedia:
In 1951, twenty-three other leaders of the party were indicted, including Elizabeth Gurley Flynn – a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union. By 1957, over 140 leaders and members of the Communist Party had been charged. The indictments and trials ended in 1957 as the result of a series of Supreme Court decisions. Yates v. United States ruled unconstitutional the conviction of numerous party leaders in a ruling that distinguished between advocacy of an idea for incitement and the teaching of an idea as a concept. The Court ruled by a margin of six to one in Watkins v. United States that defendants could use the First Amendment as a defense against "abuses of the legislative process."

That is why the "flag burning amendment" rears its head from time to time. The Supreme Court has consistently protected even flag burning as "speech".

http://supreme.justia.com/us/491/397/case.html

For me, these decisions define what America stands for and that is why it is troubling to see a major corporation decide that's its "okay" to rehabilitate someone who promoted the idea of killing an author.

[Wolter]

Expecting the corporate world to have any scruples at all is refreshingly naïve.

I hate to sound cranky, but what do you want from us? Censoring Yusef Islam? A worldwide boycott of a performer who said some stupid things? Shit, if I stopped buying music every time a performer said something stupid or harmful, I'd own like 4 CDs.

What he said was hateful, but I still can't tell if you're advocating fighting repressive censorship by censoring those that advocate it.

[Olaf]

America has been imperfect and unjust throughout history but in the context of free speech it has done very well indeed, especially in modern times. The rabble (uh, legislative branch) will always be there but the U.S. Supreme Court has held them at bay.

From wikipedia:
In 1951, twenty-three other leaders of the party were indicted, including Elizabeth Gurley Flynn – a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union. By 1957, over 140 leaders and members of the Communist Party had been charged. The indictments and trials ended in 1957 as the result of a series of Supreme Court decisions. Yates v. United States ruled unconstitutional the conviction of numerous party leaders in a ruling that distinguished between advocacy of an idea for incitement and the teaching of an idea as a concept. The Court ruled by a margin of six to one in Watkins v. United States that defendants could use the First Amendment as a defense against "abuses of the legislative process."

That is why the "flag burning amendment" rears its head from time to time. The Supreme Court has consistently protected even flag burning as "speech".

http://supreme.justia.com/us/491/397/case.html

For me, these decisions define what America stands for and that is why it is troubling to see a major corporation decide that's its "okay" to rehabilitate someone who promoted the idea of killing an author.

Personally I think you're giving way too much importance to Cat "Yusuf Islam" Stevens, just like that Austrian court did to David Irving.

[Dr. Medulla]

America has been imperfect and unjust throughout history but in the context of free speech it has done very well indeed, especially in modern times. The rabble (uh, legislative branch) will always be there but the U.S. Supreme Court has held them at bay.

Here's three Supreme Court decisions to consider: Dred Scott; Plessy v. Ferguson; and Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. The last is something that still plagues the US, as it ruled—and has been consistently upheld—that corporations have the same legal rights as citizens. Much of evil that infects American politics via corporate influence has its legal roots in that decision. Sorry, but the notion that the US is this wonderful bastion of free speech thanks to its Supreme Court is found in civics textbooks, not reality.

[Flex]

This thread is blowing my mind.

[Dr. Medulla]

This thread is blowing my mind.

How close is it to declaring a fatwa on Cat Stevens in the name of freedom?

[Flex]

This thread is blowing my mind.

How close is it to declaring a fatwa on Cat Stevens in the name of freedom?

There are so, so many people ahead of Cat Stevens on the list of people I'm going to declare fatwas on.

Addendum: And just to pile on a little more, the whole flag burning is protected thing is sort of a red herring. Sure, it's nice that I can go burn me some flags, but while that's being protected, anarchist and anti-war (and, under the Obama administration, various conservative) groups and their members are regularly arrested and/or illegally monitored by state and federal forces. Protests have become all but banned in the United States - relegated to the delightfully named "free speech zones."

It seems like one's outrage would be better directed towards some of that shit than a folk singer that literally no one but you, darter, pay any attention to.

[Dr. Medulla]

Addendum: And just to pile on a little more, the whole flag burning is protected thing is sort of a red herring. Sure, it's nice that I can go burn me some flags, but while that's being protected, anarchist and anti-war (and, under the Obama administration, various conservative) groups and their members are regularly arrested and/or illegally monitored by state and federal forces. Protests have become all but banned in the United States - relegated to the delightfully named "free speech zones."

See how the protests in Pittsburgh were handled, just for the latest example. The NY Times had a story a couple days ago about a guy—self-professed anarchist—who was arrested for tweeting about police actions in Pittsburgh. So, Iranian tweeters about police crackdowns are heroes; Americans who do the same should be jailed.

[darter]

See how the protests in Pittsburgh were handled

Who will win in court? I bet he prevails on the speech issues - if there are any- but goes down on the charge of "grown man still carrying picture of Lenin." (Assuming that Obama gets the next two Supreme Court appointments). If he was simply helping people commit crimes and avoid arrest - he loses.

From wikipedia:

Following the assassination attempt on Lenin and the successful assassination of Petrograd chief of secret police Moisei Uritsky, Stalin, in a telegram to Lenin, argued that a policy of “open and systematic mass terror” be instigated against “those responsible”. Lenin and the other Bolsheviks agreed, and instructed Felix Dzerzhinsky, whom Lenin had appointed to head the Cheka in 1917, to commence a “Red Terror”, which was officially announced to the public on September 1, 1918, by the Bolshevik newspaper, Krasnaya Gazeta (“Krasnaya Gazette”).

But I think considering how police behave during street violence is a bit of a straw man, (they will always suppress speech), when my concern is whether an author who quietly publishes a book ought to be killed by religious fanatics like Cat Stevens, who by the way, seemed content to let others actually commit the murder.

[eumaas]

See how the protests in Pittsburgh were handled

Who will win in court? I bet he prevails on the speech issues - if there are any- but goes down on the charge of "grown man still carrying picture of Lenin." (Assuming that Obama gets the next two Supreme Court appointments). If he was simply helping people commit crimes and avoid arrest - he loses.

From wikipedia:

Following the assassination attempt on Lenin and the successful assassination of Petrograd chief of secret police Moisei Uritsky, Stalin, in a telegram to Lenin, argued that a policy of “open and systematic mass terror” be instigated against “those responsible”. Lenin and the other Bolsheviks agreed, and instructed Felix Dzerzhinsky, whom Lenin had appointed to head the Cheka in 1917, to commence a “Red Terror”, which was officially announced to the public on September 1, 1918, by the Bolshevik newspaper, Krasnaya Gazeta (“Krasnaya Gazette”).

But I think considering how police behave during street violence is a bit of a straw man, (they will always suppress speech), when my concern is whether an author who quietly publishes a book ought to be killed by religious fanatics like Cat Stevens, who by the way, seemed content to let others actually commit the murder.

Anarchists do not revere Lenin--he murdered many of us. I guarantee you that it was a photograph critical of Lenin. That it depicted Lenin doesn't mean jack shit. This is a common smear tactic that I've seen again and again--describe a literal truth stripped of its context. Pure propaganda bullshit.

[Wolter]

Fucking hell do I hate Lenin and all those fucking Bolsheviks.