America the Proud?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lalaith
Read my statement above. There I have explained what sort of books are usually banned.

I already knew what kind of books are banned. But what is to prevent the government from just turning around and banning other books if it wants? You take away the freedom of others - whether you agree with them or not - you run the risk of your own freedoms being taken away in the future. I may not agree with the KKK, the Black Panthers, etc - but they have a right to their opinions and the right to demonstrate and the right to publication. But I also have a right to speak out against them too.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
of course not - we all have laws. But why would a government dictate what you can and can not read? Is that freedom? No it's not. What is to prevent the government from coming in and saying that Fantasy books are evil and banning them? or political books that are critical of the country or something? If a government can ban one type of book - they can ban any type of book.

I'd say that's a wrong generalisation. Being capable of banning one type of book is not equal to banning all sorts of books. It's not like a government can say, "Hey, let's ban fantasy books from today onwards, the last one I read really sucked." Do you really think the public would allow such behaviour? There's a lot more involved than that. And even if a government has the power to ban certain books, it doesn't necesarily mean they do so as well.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
I'd say that's a wrong generalisation. Being capable of banning one type of book is not equal to banning all sorts of books. It's not like a government can say, "Hey, let's ban fantasy books from today onwards, the last one I read really sucked." Do you really think the public would allow such behaviour? There's a lot more involved than that. And even if a government has the power to ban certain books, it doesn't necesarily mean they do so as well.

So what is to prevent them from banning them then? We have the First Amendment that prevents the banning of books. Without a change to the Constitution - the government can not ban books.

I'm also not saying banning books just because the person read one because they read on that "sucked".

[Elvellon]

Is there anything that guarantees in Austria that books won't be banned? I know other European countries routinely ban books - and the people supposedly live in a free country.

Really? What countries are you talking about? And what books?


As for the original question: Yes the US has many reasons to be proud, they have accomplished much.

To be proud in one’s country is a result of belonging to it. We are not just individuals, but also a part of our community, and as such the history of the community is also, to an extent, our own.

[Lalaith]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I didn't say we didn't have a difference of opinion. You said you didn't understand how people could be proud of their country - and I countered that with I don't understand how you can't see how they could be.

Of course we have different opinions. But I don't care. I don't think we need to discuss that. Calm down.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It can take years - but it isn't that hard to get US citizenship. We have a million immigrants to this country every year.

U.S. Citizenship Test
US Immigration Center

But you have to live there for quite a long time. Don't you need a green card or anything like that?
I don't think that you are able to just fly there, buy a house, start working and then after some time get the citizenship.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You don't concider the government being able to dictate what you can and can not read or sday as a reduction in freedom?

No. I think it is right to forbit National Socialism, history has shown us what can happen.
Here the right wing extremists are not allowed to speak in public or do something which is extremely "right". But guess where they go? Hmmm ... don't need to mention the country.
And they don't ban just another book. They need some proof in the Constituion.
We are not a country full of outlaws. Yah, we actually do have laws and we have to follow them.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That isn't freedom - that's taking money from people who earn it. I don't agree with the socialist forms of government. As for America - we have many social programs however and contrary to everyones belief in the US you do not get turned away from a hospital if you need treatment. Social programs does not bring freedom - look at the soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea and all the other communist states. Ask them how much freedom they have.

So, you think that people who get think don't earn money? Of course they do and they pay for the social system and if anything happens to them they get it back.
Just a simple insurance organized by the state.
I didn't talk of communism. That's something else.
Don't take my words wrong.

[Lalaith]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So what is to prevent them from banning them then? We have the First Amendment that prevents the banning of books. Without a change to the Constitution - the government can not ban books.

I'm also not saying banning books just because the person read one because they read on that "sucked".

If a government just bans a book. Without a reason. Do you think the people would ever elect them again?

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So what is to prevent them from banning them then? We have the First Amendment that prevents the banning of books. Without a change to the Constitution - the government can not ban books.

You have the constitution that prevents the banning of books. But who says that the other governments' "freedom" of banning books isn't equally tied by national or other laws? It would surprise me heavily if it wasn't.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lalaith
Of course we have different opinions. But I don't care. I don't think we need to discuss that. Calm down.

I am calm.

But you have to live there for quite a long time. Don't you need a green card or anything like that?
I don't think that you are able to just fly there, buy a house, start working and then after some time get the citizenship.

Actually if a child is born here - they automatically are granted US citizenship.

No. I think it is right to forbit National Socialism, history has shown us what can happen.
Here the right wing extremists are not allowed to speak in public or do something which is extremely "right".

So in other words - you have no problem with restricting the free speech of others as long as you don't agree with them?

We have the checks and balances in our government. The President can not do anything without congress - unlike in many European countries where the Prime Minister has much more power. The President has limited power. Congress in turn is limited by the Supreme Court.

But guess where they go? Hmmm ... don't need to mention the country.

That is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. I assume the country you mean is the US.. Too bad you have never been here to know know anything about our country.

By the way - really funny how France almost voted in LePen there.

And they don't ban just another book. They need some proof in the Constituion.
We are not a country full of outlaws. Yah, we actually do have laws and we have to follow them.

i didn't say you were a land of outlaws. But so far you have stated - you can freely restrict the thoughts and expressions of others - because you disagree with them and that you don't have a problem with that. That I find really sad that you find nothing wrong. It's easy to accept restrictions on people's ideas when you disagree with them - much harder to stick up for the rights of the people whose ideas disgust you.

So, you think that people who get think don't earn money? Of course they do and they pay for the social system and if anything happens to them they get it back.

So they only get the amount of benefits equal to the amount they put into the system?

Just a simple insurance organized by the state.
I didn't talk of communism. That's something else.
Don't take my words wrong.

Communism is a socialist system. it's just further left than socialism. You have a socialist system. I agree with limited social programs - but the government handling anything just turns into a mismanaged beaurocratic mess.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Really? What countries are you talking about? And what books?

France can ban books it deems to be racist and other countries in Europe also ban books on those grounds. Just becuase you disagree with someone's ideas = banning does nothing. really it just causes the problem to go underground. You really can't tell me that Germany does not have a neo-nazi problem just because nazi books are banned. I've seen them march and demonstrate.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
You have the constitution that prevents the banning of books. But who says that the other governments' "freedom" of banning books isn't equally tied by national or other laws? It would surprise me heavily if it wasn't.

Unlike standard laws - the Constituion of the United States is VERY difficult to change. It would require 2/3 approval from Congress and 3/4 approval of the states.

[jerseydevil]

By the way - Lalaith - who is it that determines what is extremely right? How far is right? why not restrict the far left? Why not restrict all political speech?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lalaith
If a government just bans a book. Without a reason. Do you think the people would ever elect them again?

if the majority accept the banning they will. N one stepped up and said anything when Hitler started banning books. It was accepted by society that those books deserved to be burned. Like I said - it's very easy to accept the banning of things you personally disagree with - it is much harder to stick up for the rights of those people to have those ideas.

The only thing that should be outlawed is the actions - not the ideas or books.

[Elvellon]

France can ban books it deems to be racist and other countries in Europe also ban books on those grounds. Just becuase you disagree with someone's ideas = banning does nothing. really it just causes the problem to go underground. You really can't tell me that Germany does not have a neo-nazi problem just because nazi books are banned. I've seen them march and demonstrate.

Well, I still would like to know what specific books you are talking about, and what countries. It seems to me you may be speaking of hearsay.

That said, I believe I see your mistake. I believe you are confusing the right to express one's opinions, (however despicable), with a right to urge others to commit racial violence. While I’m not particularly knowledgeable of the French law, the difference between the two can sometimes bring confusion.

The first, I believe, is as guaranteed in France as elsewhere. The second however is not a matter of free expression, but a criminal matter.

Another possibility is slander; to slander one community is simply not acceptable. So if someone decides to do so it will probably be brought to court by the slandered community or by the state itself.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Well, I still would like to know what specific books you are talking about, and what countries. It seems to me you may be speaking of hearsay.

That said, I believe I see your mistake. I believe you are confusing the right to express one's opinions, (however despicable), with a right to urge others to commit racial violence. While I’m not particularly knowledgeable of the French law, the difference between the two can sometimes bring confusion.

I'm not confusing the two. Wolfenstein does not encourage anyone to go out and commit racial violence. Violence is illegal - and once it crosses over to violence or personal theats - it crosses the line. Someone talking about the evils of a racial group - no matter how heinous their views may be - are still their views. Just because you don't agree with them - doesn't mean they don't have a right to their views.

The first, I believe, is as guaranteed in France as elsewhere. The second however is not a matter of free expression, but a criminal matter.

What is guaranteed and what is a criminal matter?

Another possibility is slander; to slander one community is simply not acceptable. So if someone decides to do so it will probably be brought to court by the slandered community or by the state itself.

Slander is only protected against individuals - also - it is much harder in the US to claim slander than it seems to be in England. Here - as long as iI can prove it's true or if I state that it is my personal opinion - it is not slander. I can have my one opinions - who is someoen else to say that they are right or wrong. You may disagree with my opinions - but you can't actually say that they are wrong. I can put together a website that "such and such an actress is a fat b***h" That can be determined slander - but if it's my opinion - they can't say I'm wrong and they can't do anything about it. The courts of the US will protect MY right to my opinions and to state them - which is GUARANTEED by the First Amendment.

There have been many court cases where students have put up websites denouncing their teachers. The schools suspepended the students until they were taken down - they then went to court - most of the websites were determined to be developed on outside computers and had no ties to the school and the students rights were upheld. A person has a right to express their opinions and their beleifs in a TRULY free society - whether you agree with them or not.

[Dúnedain]

Well I am disappointed in you JD, I mean the person who starts the thread didn't even back up their initial question with any proof other than "read this book, blah, blah, blah..." and with "we need to give compensation" and yet doesn't describe who the heck or what the heck they are talking about.

I am disappointed in you JD, because you should have used your American Pride to do one of two things:

1) Ignore him/her until he/she brings something to the table to discuss

or

2) Find where he/she lives and beat the crap out of them


This has been a public service announcement by Dúnedain

[jerseydevil]

As stated in Federlist Paper #10 by James Madison - the forming of our Repulic was put into place to protect the rights of the minority.

....Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.

.....

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

......

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

....

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

......

When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

....A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.....

James Madison wrote that explaining the virtues of a Republic over a true Democracy.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Well I am disappointed in you JD, I mean the person who starts the thread didn't even back up their initial question with any proof other than "read this book, blah, blah, blah..." and with "we need to give compensation" and yet doesn't describe who the heck or what the heck they are talking about.

I am disappointed in you JD, because you should have used your American Pride to do one of two things:

1) Ignore him/her until he/she brings something to the table to discuss

or

2) Find where he/she lives and beat the crap out of them


This has been a public service announcement by Dúnedain

Well I have that book and the bok is so ridiculously written and leaves out so much and puts so much blaim on America - that I feel sorry for anyone who takes that book seriously. It wasn't worth a long comment on. Sorry to let you down though - maybe you can correct my errors.

The thread has sort of gone off topic anyway though and has moved onto what is freedom. Is a country truly free when they infringe on a person's free speech which majority disagree with? Are the rights of the minority worth protecting from the majority or is it majority rule?

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
By the way - really funny how France almost voted in LePen there.

And the significance of this quote is...?

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Unlike standard laws - the Constituion of the United States is VERY difficult to change. It would require 2/3 approval from Congress and 3/4 approval of the states.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow. Are you saying the laws that would regulate a European government's bookbanning activity are more easily changed than your constitution and therefore of lesser worth?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
And the significance of this quote is...?

Well Lalaith stated how all the right wingers go to the US. Le Pen was a racist and he almost won election. We on the other had had a former KKK member run for president and he never made it past the primaries.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow. Are you saying the laws that would regulate a European government's bookbanning activity are more easily changed than your constitution and therefore of lesser worth?

More easily changed. There is far less of guarantee of someone not changing your law than there is in changing our Constitution. So yes - your simple law is of less value than our First Amendment. If you disagree with this then I suggest you read how our government works and the role of our Constitution.

As I said - the only way for the government to start banning books is by removing the First Amendment - this will take a 2/3 vote of Congress and 3/4 approval by the states.

[HOBBIT]

hey, i could ask the thread starter anything you want next time i talk to him...