Pentagon: "Trump is endangering US security"

[Jambalaya]

I've only skimmed the responses and the Trump coverage as a whole as I'm busy, but I just wanted to say a couple things. It seems to me that Trump is not saying anything bad about Muslims themselves, per se, but he is recommending measures like registration in order to contain any security threat, however small that threat may be in a given group of Muslims. Kind of like throwing a really wide net in the very small chance that you might catch a rare fish. The trouble with this approach is that all the innocent fish are caught in the net, too. But I'm interpreting him as indicating that you can blame ISIS for that effect, and that he thinks these actions are worth the embarrassment and discomfort to the Muslim community in order to avoid putting families through the deaths of their loved ones when terrorist acts are committed - tragedies that may well involve Muslims, too, since they are also killed sometimes in random terror attacks, of course.

So although Trump's suggestions are highly inflammatory and horribly reminiscent of certain events in Europe a few decades ago, I'm not sure that he is actually racist as much as he is trying to think of ways to fully contain the terrorist threat. It would be better if he calmed down and explained that of course it's awful to think of registering all Muslims, but he wonders if they might voluntarily agree to it for the benefit of the greater good and he knows it's a lot to ask, but perhaps they might consider the pain caused to people when loved ones die in terror attacks and he hopes they might consider registering voluntarily in order to fight this evil, and the sooner we get rid of Isis the sooner the embarrassment can end. What I mean is, there are much better ways to put across his ideas. For the record, I don't agree with his idea because I think the terrorists are already here, if they are here, and because the registration idea is a step into the past, but his delivery has allowed his message to be seen as pure racism, and I'm not sure that's true.

The other thing is, I think the UK's petition is ridiculous, and I hear they have laws about hate speech. I am uncomfortable with a government that tries to control what people say. Isn't that real Orwellian? They are just words, and I guess the argument is that words can have influence, but people have to think for themselves and I don't think that legislating speech is the answer, as well as being undemocratic. I am of the opinion that I might not like what you say but I'll defend your right to say it. I also think that banning Trump from the UK is crazy. He has the right to his opinions, whether or not you like them, and to ban him from entering a country because of his opinions is very intolerant IMHO.

 

[ksinger]

Are more people buying gums or are the same people buying more guns for fear Nobama's going to take their gun rights away?

You will get different sources producing different results, but they are all suspect. Really, don’t even bother trying to get any reliable stats from the web or elsewhere, about who is buying guns or in what quantity, because those are the very numbers the NRA has been so effective at making sure that no one can harvest.

 

[AGBF]

So although Trump's suggestions are highly inflammatory and horribly reminiscent of certain events in Europe a few decades ago, I'm not sure that he is actually racist as much as he is trying to think of ways to fully contain the terrorist threat.

If you mean you actually do not think that barring all Muslims in order to stop a handful of terrorists who happen to be Muslim is racist, you and I reason very differently.

The other thing is, I think the UK's petition is ridiculous, and I hear they have laws about hate speech. I am uncomfortable with a government that tries to control what people say. Isn't that real Orwellian? They are just words, and I guess the argument is that words can have influence, but people have to think for themselves and I don't think that legislating speech is the answer, as well as being undemocratic. I am of the opinion that I might not like what you say but I'll defend your right to say it. I also think that banning Trump from the UK is crazy. He has the right to his opinions, whether or not you like them, and to ban him from entering a country because of his opinions is very intolerant IMHO.

No one said he couldn't say it, Jambalaya. He said it. He wasn't thrown into a dungeon or shot for saying it. But actions have consequences. If one says something offensive about the neighbors, they may not invite you into their home. The UK isn't Mr. Trump's country. If he isn't welcome there, he can hardly force his way in.

AGBF

 

[Jambalaya]

I was talking about the registration idea, not the ban, if you re-read my post. About registration, you have to consider context. If Trump came out and said this stuff but there were no terrorists and everything was normal, I can't think of any reason for it except racism. But because ISIS is so horrendous - remember the video beheadings - and all the other utterly horrific stuff they're doing, I just thought it might be possible that Trump is thinking of any way possible to protect more people getting hurt. Perhaps it's a case of desperate times, desperate measures. It was just a random thought, really. I don't know much about him, and have only been aware of him as a super-rich businessman. I don't know what his track record is like, in terms of his opinions. I just think it's easy to yell "Racist!" without examining what someone's actually saying, and that's what I was doing. I think it's possible he's just trying to stop more innocent people getting blown up, and if such actions are seen as racist then that's better than more deaths, is his point, perhaps. I've been appalled by all his pronouncements, but I'm just floating the possibility out there instead of being black and white.

And about free speech in the UK, you say he wasn't shot or thrown into a dungeon for saying it, but in the UK it is a crime, for example, to call someone of Pakistani heritage a "Paki" and you can absolutely be arrested for that and other speech under their laws. He wasn't arrested as he wasn't in the UK when he said it, but now they're doing the next best thing and trying to ban him from entering because he said something they didn't like. Not OK in my book. In practice I'm not sure how often people are actually arrested for saying things the authorities don't like, but the laws and the framework are certainly there to do so. I'm also not sure what would happen from there, if you would actually go to jail for a few weeks or something, but if you were prosecuted and convicted of hate speech you'd probably end up at least doing community service. I've read about these anti-free-speech laws in TIME magazine. I stand firmly behind my conviction that governments have got no business controlling what people say. I may not like what you say but I'll defend your right to say it (paraphrasing Voltaire.)

In any case, Trump is an idiot because he's dividing and splitting the country and that's what ISIS wants. Divide and conquer.

ETA: In TIME magazine, in recent weeks, there was a long article about the internet in China and all the censorship. The article included a table showing the levels of internet censorship for many countries. The US had no internet censorship at all, but the UK did have some. It was low-level, but still. I was amazed. But internet censorship fits with a country that has laws regulating what you may and may not say. I'm very surprised and appalled that the UK has both. And now this petition which will be debated in Parliament trying to ban Trump because he said something they didn't like. He hasn't done anything; they are just words and I think the UK needs to stop being so hysterical. ISIS has managed to divide two old allies. Trump and the UK are doing all ISIS' work for them. Everyone is fighting. They must be kicking back and feeling real good about that.

 

[Rhea]

The other thing is, I think the UK's petition is ridiculous, and I hear they have laws about hate speech. I am uncomfortable with a government that tries to control what people say. Isn't that real Orwellian? They are just words, and I guess the argument is that words can have influence, but people have to think for themselves and I don't think that legislating speech is the answer, as well as being undemocratic. I am of the opinion that I might not like what you say but I'll defend your right to say it. I also think that banning Trump from the UK is crazy. He has the right to his opinions, whether or not you like them, and to ban him from entering a country because of his opinions is very intolerant IMHO.

Here, in the UK, we don't have the right to free speech. When I first came over I couldn't fathom living some place that didn't have a few things that I'd been brought up with in the US - free speech being one of them. But it's a far cry from the government attempting to control what it's citizens are saying. We do not have the right to incite hate through our speech. We don't have the right to use racist language. We don't have the right to threaten, harass, or provoke others to do so. As an example, the KKK has a right to freedom of speech in public in the US I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong). Other here, that's inciting violence and using racist behaviour and language so the KKK marching would be banned. They can hold meetings, they can discuss amongst themselves and recruit. They do not have a right to hate speech in public.

Donald Trump is saying that the UK has a massive Muslim problem, that parts of London are so radicalised that police are fearful for their lives, and that more Muslims are joining IS than the British army. Just like the Pentagon, the people of the UK consider these comments unhelpful and see that they potentially condone violence or harassment. I neither want people to think it's okay to Muslim bash in public or to push the Muslim community away and into a world where there's an us vs them. Both have the potential to incite violence in current climates.

I completely understand being brought up with freedom of speech in the US. I attended numerous school debates when discussing the US constitution about what that meant and when does your right to free speech violate someone else's rights. The UK has simply fallen on the side that while you can express yourself, your right to express and speech doesn't mean that you can invade someone else's right to a peaceful life without harassment or violence. Our government is really not that prescriptive. Opinions do vary and there's a wide range which are regularly and fairly forcefully expressed. There are Republican newspapers calling to the dethrone the monarchy and no one has been beheaded for saying that in quite some time

 

[missy]

The other thing is, I think the UK's petition is ridiculous, and I hear they have laws about hate speech. I am uncomfortable with a government that tries to control what people say. Isn't that real Orwellian? They are just words, and I guess the argument is that words can have influence, but people have to think for themselves and I don't think that legislating speech is the answer, as well as being undemocratic. I am of the opinion that I might not like what you say but I'll defend your right to say it. I also think that banning Trump from the UK is crazy. He has the right to his opinions, whether or not you like them, and to ban him from entering a country because of his opinions is very intolerant IMHO.

Here, in the UK, we don't have the right to free speech. When I first came over I couldn't fathom living some place that didn't have a few things that I'd been brought up with in the US - free speech being one of them. But it's a far cry from the government attempting to control what it's citizens are saying. We do not have the right to incite hate through our speech. We don't have the right to use racist language. We don't have the right to threaten, harass, or provoke others to do so. As an example, the KKK has a right to freedom of speech in public in the US I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong). Other here, that's inciting violence and using racist behaviour and language so the KKK marching would be banned. They can hold meetings, they can discuss amongst themselves and recruit. They do not have a right to hate speech in public.

Donald Trump is saying that the UK has a massive Muslim problem, that parts of London are so radicalised that police are fearful for their lives, and that more Muslims are joining IS than the British army. Just like the Pentagon, the people of the UK consider these comments unhelpful and see that they potentially condone violence or harassment. I neither want people to think it's okay to Muslim bash in public or to push the Muslim community away and into a world where there's an us vs them. Both have the potential to incite violence in current climates.

I completely understand being brought up with freedom of speech in the US. I attended numerous school debates when discussing the US constitution about what that meant and when does your right to free speech violate someone else's rights. The UK has simply fallen on the side that while you can express yourself, your right to express and speech doesn't mean that you can invade someone else's right to a peaceful life without harassment or violence. Our government is really not that prescriptive. Opinions do vary and there's a wide range which are regularly and fairly forcefully expressed. There are Republican newspapers calling to the dethrone the monarchy and no one has been beheaded for saying that in quite some time

Rhea, I wish we had common sense in our government like it seems the UK does. It sounds like you really do have free speech but speech that does not infringe upon the peaceful existence of innocent people. I am all for that. What happens here in front of abortion clinics etc is unacceptable. Though my dh insists they are not allowed to get in your face right in front of the clinic I have read otherwise here and it makes me ill thinking of those individuals who have to deal with such awful comments right in their face during an incredibly difficult time. Just to name one example.

 

[ksinger]

I was talking about the registration idea, not the ban, if you re-read my post. About registration, you have to consider context. If Trump came out and said this stuff but there were no terrorists and everything was normal, I can't think of any reason for it except racism. But because ISIS is so horrendous - remember the video beheadings - and all the other utterly horrific stuff they're doing, I just thought it might be possible that Trump is thinking of any way possible to protect more people getting hurt. Perhaps it's a case of desperate times, desperate measures. It was just a random thought, really. I don't know much about him, and have only been aware of him as a super-rich businessman. I don't know what his track record is like, in terms of his opinions. I just think it's easy to yell "Racist!" without examining what someone's actually saying, and that's what I was doing. I think it's possible he's just trying to stop more innocent people getting blown up, and if such actions are seen as racist then that's better than more deaths, is his point, perhaps. I've been appalled by all his pronouncements, but I'm just floating the possibility out there instead of being black and white.

And about free speech in the UK, you say he wasn't shot or thrown into a dungeon for saying it, but in the UK it is a crime, for example, to call someone of Pakistani heritage a "Paki" and you can absolutely be arrested for that and other speech under their laws. He wasn't arrested as he wasn't in the UK when he said it, but now they're doing the next best thing and trying to ban him from entering because he said something they didn't like. Not OK in my book. In practice I'm not sure how often people are actually arrested for saying things the authorities don't like, but the laws and the framework are certainly there to do so. I'm also not sure what would happen from there, if you would actually go to jail for a few weeks or something, but if you were prosecuted and convicted of hate speech you'd probably end up at least doing community service. I've read about these anti-free-speech laws in TIME magazine. I stand firmly behind my conviction that governments have got no business controlling what people say. I may not like what you say but I'll defend your right to say it (paraphrasing Voltaire.)

In any case, Trump is an idiot because he's dividing and splitting the country and that's what ISIS wants. Divide and conquer.

ETA: In TIME magazine, in recent weeks, there was a long article about the internet in China and all the censorship. The article included a table showing the levels of internet censorship for many countries. The US had no internet censorship at all, but the UK did have some. It was low-level, but still. I was amazed. But internet censorship fits with a country that has laws regulating what you may and may not say. I'm very surprised and appalled that the UK has both. And now this petition which will be debated in Parliament trying to ban Trump because he said something they didn't like. He hasn't done anything; they are just words and I think the UK needs to stop being so hysterical. ISIS has managed to divide two old allies. Trump and the UK are doing all ISIS' work for them. Everyone is fighting. They must be kicking back and feeling real good about that.

This potential ban on Trump traveling to the UK is not being instigated by the government, it is being pushed by a petition of the people - at last count, over half a million. I’m not sure what could be more democratic than that. Do we not currently have something similar with petitions of a certain number having to be at least acknowdeged by the White House? In any case, it is completely within their rights to refuse entry to someone whose actual public speech gives them reason to think his presence has the potential to create instabliity and unrest if he is allowed to enter. Remember, he’s already pissed off the UK prior to this latest round. Now he’s horrifying the world, and embarrassing the US.

You say that Trump should be given a pass because it’s “only words”. Our constitution is only words too. Are you seriously telling me that words can only inspire to goodness and love of fellow humans? Why do you think he deserves the benefit of their doubt? He constantly presents himself as a straight talker. Nobody should get too upset then, when the rest of the world takes him at his word, and acknowledges what they see as the negative power of those words by stating unequivocally, their opposition to them.

I would also point out that the courts in this country have long upheld certain restrictions on speech, albeit with a higher bar than some places. One could argue that the UK is actually more concerned about actual security by having more types of speech restricted, than WE are. The US has been on a long track of prioritizing the freedom of individuals over a lot of things, most glaringly these days, over anything resembling the general welfare.

And in my favorite blip of the morning, with classic British skill at skewering, Simon Schama: “Just because Trump is detestable moron doesnt mean he isnt also sinister and dangerous.”

 

[missy]

And in my favorite blip of the morning, with classic British skill at skewering, Simon Schama: “Just because Trump is detestable moron doesnt mean he isnt also sinister and dangerous.”

Word.

 

[telephone89]

I saw this and liked it

 

[Jambalaya]

Ksinger - "This potential ban on Trump traveling to the UK is not being instigated by the government" - As I already said in my post, the petition may not be instigated by the Government but when the petition gets to a certain amount of signatures, it is debated in Parliament and so it does become an official political issue. I think it's close to the number needed where it goes to Parliament. And the Constitution is not only words because those words are law. When some idiot in the UK says something hateful their words are not law. Totally different thing.

Rhea - thank you for your reply. You seem to be saying the the UK enforces its rules about what kind of speech citizens may indulge in with wisdom. I hope that's true. I still believe strongly in free speech and I don't think governments should legislate speech. They are only words and people are at liberty to use their minds and not be influenced by the words of others - limiting speech implies that we're in danger of being influenced, which is insulting to people's morals and intelligence. Racism, hate, etc cannot be incited by words in people who are moral, kind and decent, and in my opinion I do not need to be protected from such speech. You use the example of the KKK marching - but that is action. Marching is not words.

Look, I don't like Trump and his ideas. Ksinger you asked me why I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I don't really know if he does, but I don't like witch-hunts and trial-by-media (banning Trump for example) and I was just thinking around the topic, playing devil's advocate, and considering the context in which this is happening - which is the unspeakable violence committed by ISIS. I still think it's possible that his objective is to stop more innocent people getting hurt. That makes more sense to me than the idea that Trump actually doesn't care about people's safety or about terrorism but just hates Muslims and has seen his chance to stitch them up. Maybe I'm just projecting my own morals, but I find it really hard to believe it's the latter, not because I like Trump but because I find it hard to believe anyone actually thinks that way. But I don't know the guy or much about him, and I do wish he'd shut up because he is dividing the US and dividing the US and the UK, two old allies. ISIS must be real pleased with all the dividing and conquering.

 

[kenny]

... and I do wish he'd shut up because he is dividing the US and dividing the US and the UK, two old allies. ISIS must be real pleased with all the dividing and conquering.

But Trump's only using words.

Which proves that the pen is mightier than the sword.

 

[kenny]

Rhea - thank you for your reply. You seem to be saying the the UK enforces its rules about what kind of speech citizens may indulge in with wisdom. I hope that's true. I still believe strongly in free speech and I don't think governments should legislate speech. They are only words and people are at liberty to use their minds and not be influenced by the words of others - limiting speech implies that we're in danger of being influenced, which is insulting to people's morals and intelligence. Racism, hate, etc cannot be incited by words in people who are moral, kind and decent, and in my opinion I do not need to be protected from such speech. You use the example of the KKK marching - but that is action. Marching is not words.

I agree.
... and I hate that I agree here because I just read that 25% of Americans support Trump's Muslim-ban thingie.

I hate that our free speech is fanning this.
In this case I wish someone could unplug this fan.

The same free speech wouldn't scare me as much if it was just heard in some red neck bar in Alabama.
But this is the front-running presidential candidate for one of the two major parties.

I'm less-bothered that free speech allows Nazi and KKK hate speech.
Very few are brainless enough to drink their Kool-Aid.

But I'm astonished, disgusted and horrified by this quote, A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans opposed Mr Trump's ban idea, while 25% of those polled were in favour of it.
Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35073881

Actually, the UK's approach to free speech sounds more rational and well-considered than the US Constitution's.
But good luck changing that part of our 'sacred' text.

 

[Jambalaya]

Very good points, Kenny, and actually I agree with everything you've said here, including about the pen might. Laws against free speech would sure be useful in this instance because then we could just shut Trump down. Turn him off with a flick of the switch. Doesn't that sound just wonderful? The trouble is, then we would have laws against free speech regulating everybody, for the sake of the occasional idiot like Trump. What's the saying - throwing the baby out with the bathwater? I wouldn't want to legislate speech because of occasional Donalds. And while 25% of people might agree with the ban, that's 75% who do not. For the record, I don't agree with the ban or with the registration idea; above I was just applying some critical thought to the probability of what Trump's motives might actually be, and giving him the benefit of the doubt. But perhaps he doesn't actually care about national security and just hates Muslims. It's possible, of course. I have no way of knowing.

His words might have caused a big fight but still 75% don't agree with him, and you get the sense that the remaining 25% don't need Trump to tell them to be racist. I really don't think that anything someone like Trump says can cause a non-racist person to become racist - but perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps some people are easily influenced.

You said: "I'm less-bothered that free speech allows Nazi and KKK hate speech. Very few are brainless enough to drink their Kool-Aid." That's it - exactly. That, in a nutshell, is why I'm uncomfortable with what I've read about the UK's laws on this. It's very infantilizing - as if people are in danger of becoming racist because they hear someone say something racist.

You say it's alarming because he's a front-runner for a presidential campaign, but that doesn't mean anything since he's never been elected for anything - any old person can stand, and he's only standing because he's got the money and the platform to do so. It's not as if he's come up through the political system and people have previously elected him as a state governor or anything. And if 75% of people don't agree with his ideas, then we're probably in no danger of him becoming president. Like your example of the racist redneck in a bar, I think 75% of people are just rolling their eyes at him and not taking him seriously, thank god.

 

[kenny]

Well, this is disturbing.
Thank you, Ivana.

I see some alarming parallels here ...
Egomaniac campaigning to lead his country issues shocking inflammatory statements that demonize an unpopular minority religious group and races.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/donald-trump-getting-his-cues-hitler-how-gop-leader-following-fuhrers-recipe

The article begins ...

 

[ksinger]

Jambalaya, I’m not sure how you can say written laws and actions are totally different from words, when spoken words are always the antecedents of both. From Jesus to Hitler, words first.


Kenny, I think you’re wrong about the draw of the Neo Nazi and KKK ideologies in the US. I suggest a quick search on “the state of white supremacist groups in US”. It’s sobering.

And not related to the free speech in the UK thing, but you might not know, David Duke publicly endorsed Trump.

For anyone who cares to read it, this.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/donald-trump-white-supremacists-216620#ixzz3u2L6oCiI”

excerpt: (any emphasis mine)
“white nationalist leaders are capitalizing on his candidacy to invigorate and expand their movement.

“Demoralization has been the biggest enemy and Trump is changing all that,” said Stormfront founder Don Black, who reports additional listeners and call volume to his phone-in radio show, in addition to the site’s traffic bump.Black predicts that the white nationalist forces set in motion by Trump will be a legacy that outlives the businessman’s political career. “He’s certainly creating a movement that will continue independently of him even if he does fold at some point.”

Trump does not belong to or endorse white supremacist groups. He has said that he does not need or want Duke’s endorsement and his campaign has fired two staffers over racist posts on social media. A man displaying a Confederate flag was ejected from a Trump rally in Virginia earlier this month.

But its leaders consistently say that Trump's rhetoric about minority groups has successfully tapped into simmering racial resentments long ignored by mainstream politicians and that he has brought more attention to their agenda than any American political figure in years. It is a development many of them see as a golden opportunity.

Meanwhile, analysts from the two leading organizations that track violence against minority groups say Trump is energizing hate groups and creating an atmosphere likely to lead to more violence against American Muslims.

According to experts at the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center who monitor hate groups and anti-Muslim sentiment, Trump’s call on Monday to halt the entrance of Muslims to the United States is driving online chatter among white supremacists and is likely to inspire violence against Muslims. “When well-known public figures make these kind of statements in the public square, they are taken as a permission-giving by criminal elements who go out and act on their words.” said Mark Potok of the SPLC. “Is it energizing the groups? Yeah. They’re thrilled.”

Read more:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/donald-trump-white-supremacists-216620#ixzz3u2L6oCiI”

 

[Matata]

[quote="Rhea|1449834427

Here, in the UK, we don't have the right to free speech. When I first came over I couldn't fathom living some place that didn't have a few things that I'd been brought up with in the US - free speech being one of them. But it's a far cry from the government attempting to control what it's citizens are saying. We do not have the right to incite hate through our speech. We don't have the right to use racist language. We don't have the right to threaten, harass, or provoke others to do so. As an example, the KKK has a right to freedom of speech in public in the US I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong). Other here, that's inciting violence and using racist behaviour and language so the KKK marching would be banned. They can hold meetings, they can discuss amongst themselves and recruit. They do not have a right to hate speech in public.

Donald Trump is saying that the UK has a massive Muslim problem, that parts of London are so radicalised that police are fearful for their lives, and that more Muslims are joining IS than the British army. Just like the Pentagon, the people of the UK consider these comments unhelpful and see that they potentially condone violence or harassment. I neither want people to think it's okay to Muslim bash in public or to push the Muslim community away and into a world where there's an us vs them. Both have the potential to incite violence in current climates.

I completely understand being brought up with freedom of speech in the US. I attended numerous school debates when discussing the US constitution about what that meant and when does your right to free speech violate someone else's rights. The UK has simply fallen on the side that while you can express yourself, your right to express and speech doesn't mean that you can invade someone else's right to a peaceful life without harassment or violence. Our government is really not that prescriptive. Opinions do vary and there's a wide range which are regularly and fairly forcefully expressed. There are Republican newspapers calling to the dethrone the monarchy and no one has been beheaded for saying that in quite some time [/quote]
This is a balanced and civilized approach to speech. We take for granted the power of words to effect change. Words, be they positive or negative, have a powerful affect on the human mind.

 

[kenny]

Maybe we need two standards for free speech.
One for the public and a more-restrictive one for public figures.

I know, I know, that'll go over like fart in an elevator.

 

[Jambalaya]

Ksinger, that was a very learned post and I can't compete with your levels of knowledge and forethought on this topic, but I just want to address the thing I feel able, which is when you said that words precede laws from Hitler to Jesus. I know what you're saying, but this is 2015 and nothing Trump says is going to become law. Everyone thinks he's an idiot - 75% anyway - and mostly he's just making a colossal fool of himself. He is not going to be president and he has tarnished his reputation forever. Remember, in the time of Hitler, pre-war society in Europe was already more anti-Semitic, racist, and sexist than today's world. All I know is that nothing anyone could say could make me racist, homophobic, or whatever, so I don't need laws regulating free speech - but perhaps others are vulnerable to being brainwashed. Kenny, your idea about restricting free speech for public figures isn't so bad. As you say, if some redneck in an obscure bar says something racist/sexist/homophobic, it's the listener's free will to agree or not, and most people wouldn't. I also think those laws are open to abuse by over-zealous law enforcement. But perhaps people like Trump with a huge platform can influence the vulnerable at a mass level, and it's true that Trump has caused the mother of all fights. I'm sad about the fight with Britain - we're supposed to be allies!

Continuing the topic of free speech, I wonder why racist speech is regulated, but not sexist speech or homophobic speech. Where do you draw the line? Why can people say things against one group (women) but not another (Muslims)? If you're going to regulate speech, that should include sexism. And then all those jokes will be outlawed. Where does it end? What about jokes against blondes? Or insults in general - do we take it that calling someone a dumb blonde is hate speech against blondes? Regulating speech is a slippery slope, IMHO, and I don't know how the UK has managed to draw lines around what speech is OK and what isn't.

 

[Jambalaya]

ETA: If that stuff about Trump reading Hitler's speeches is true, then that is very disturbing.

 

[Rhea]

I honestly don't know the ins and outs of how not using hate speech works. I've not been on the receiving or giving end. The UK is a pretty free place. It's not backwards just because the things that Americans are brought up to treasure and hold dear aren't written down in the same way. If something goes wrong, the law seems (slowly and very imperfectly as with all government) to adapt and change rather than clinging to an old document because it's their right.

Jambalaya - I was under the impression that during a march, or similar, there was usually chanting, signs and other ways of using words and speech used.

Kenny - I purposely picked on the KKK as not many people do drink from that cool-aid. I could have just as easily used homosexuality, abortion or another topic, but wanted to pick something that was last generation's fight rather than this generations fight so that the cool-aid wasn't watered down by yet another side-line debate.

 

[ksinger]

ETA: If that stuff about Trump reading Hitler's speeches is true, then that is very disturbing.

Well, if there is anything good about Trump, it's the sheer length of time he's been flapping his jaws in public. It means that his embellishments or falsehoods can usually have BS called on them from something he said decades earlier. The incident of him being given Hitler's speeches IS true, although he deny's reading them and coyly won't admit he received the gift even though his friend confirmed that the gift was given. The mere fact that he had a friend who gave the book to him, is pretty telling, since typically one gets gifts for people based on knowledge of that person, and that they think the person will like. Most normal people, don't have friends who immediately think, 'Wow, I think a book by Hitler is the perfect gift for so-and-so!"

In other interesting tidbits, his father was also arrested, although not charged (no reason as to why) as part of a large arrest action at a KKK rally in New York City in 1927. Regardless of how dad didn't get charged, I'm thinking it likely that there was a bit of racism in Trump's upbringing at least.

High points from a 1990 Vanity Fair piece, with a link to the actual piece at the bottom.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/donald-trump-marie-brenner-ivana-divorce

 

[Jambalaya]

That is all very interesting indeed, Ksinger. As I said, I don't really know anything about Trump except that he's rich. From what you've said, there do seem to be quite a few red flags about his opinions on certain matters.

 

[Jambalaya]

ETA: "Flapping his jaws"!!! ROFL!

 

[Jambalaya]

I honestly don't know the ins and outs of how not using hate speech works. I've not been on the receiving or giving end. The UK is a pretty free place. It's not backwards just because the things that Americans are brought up to treasure and hold dear aren't written down in the same way. If something goes wrong, the law seems (slowly and very imperfectly as with all government) to adapt and change rather than clinging to an old document because it's their right.

Jambalaya - I was under the impression that during a march, or similar, there was usually chanting, signs and other ways of using words and speech used.

Kenny - I purposely picked on the KKK as not many people do drink from that cool-aid. I could have just as easily used homosexuality, abortion or another topic, but wanted to pick something that was last generation's fight rather than this generations fight so that the cool-aid wasn't watered down by yet another side-line debate.

Don't worry, I never thought the UK must be backward; just when I read about that internet censorship and the regulation of certain speech, those things seemed a bit draconian and not what I'd expect of a European country.

 

[Snowdrop13]

The latest theory appears to be that DT is a "Democratic Secret Agent" recruited by Bill Clinton! Really???

 

[ksinger]

The latest theory appears to be that DT is a "Democratic Secret Agent" recruited by Bill Clinton! Really???

Because the Republican Party's selling of its collective soul to the gods of gerrymandering and Koch-type funding, and thus the multi-term purging of any moderate who dared try to govern by compromise (as our system of government was designed to do) in favor of increasingly extreme candidates who are dedicated to making absolutely certain that they make true their chant of "government doesn't work anymore", couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. No.

It must be someone else's nefarious conspiracy.

 

[packrat]

Rhea - thank you for your reply. You seem to be saying the the UK enforces its rules about what kind of speech citizens may indulge in with wisdom. I hope that's true. I still believe strongly in free speech and I don't think governments should legislate speech. They are only words and people are at liberty to use their minds and not be influenced by the words of others - limiting speech implies that we're in danger of being influenced, which is insulting to people's morals and intelligence. Racism, hate, etc cannot be incited by words in people who are moral, kind and decent, and in my opinion I do not need to be protected from such speech. You use the example of the KKK marching - but that is action. Marching is not words.

I agree.
... and I hate that I agree here because I just read that 25% of Americans support Trump's Muslim-ban thingie.

I hate that our free speech is fanning this.
In this case I wish someone could unplug this fan.

The same free speech wouldn't scare me as much if it was just heard in some red neck bar in Alabama.
But this is the front-running presidential candidate for one of the two major parties.

I'm less-bothered that free speech allows Nazi and KKK hate speech.
Very few are brainless enough to drink their Kool-Aid.

But I'm astonished, disgusted and horrified by this quote, A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans opposed Mr Trump's ban idea, while 25% of those polled were in favour of it.
Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35073881

Actually, the UK's approach to free speech sounds more rational and well-considered than the US Constitution's.
But good luck changing that part of our 'sacred' text.

Another instance where I feel we've "righted" ourselves into a corner. And really...maybe others wouldn't be as scared if it was a redneck bar in Alabama...but that's where things like that come from. Anymore, there isn't a "just" situation..it's "just" coming from this person or "just" coming from that group or "just" from that area. Near as I can tell, it "just" starts there and it "just" keeps snowballing. Little groups have a way of becoming big groups, quickly.

 

[Calliecake]

It was reported in the Chicago news that many people who live in the Chicago Trump Tower are fearful of a terrorist attack on the building. The people they interviewed said they now give their address when asked where they live. No one wanted to say they live in the Trump Tower.

 

[ksinger]

And while he's not having the Pentagon - that bastion of left-leaning fuzziness - warn that he's endangering national security, he's proving that he surrounds himself with minions just like himself - all flash and no substance. And likely ex-minions by this time. They've opened the boss to law suits from all angles, but worse than that, they've embarrassed him.

My lawyerly friends and relatives on FB were laughing themselves senseless over this one. The spanking given is pretty awesome.

Bush PAC attorney to Trump counsel: You may want to try learning election law
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/09/bush-pac-attorney-to-trump-counsel-you-may-want-to-try-learning-election-law/