Dire Straits song "Money For Nothing" Banned from Canadian Radio

[PzR Slim]

Yes, I get that he's saying Europeans have suffered moreso and therefore have a more valid claim on truth by virtue of their perspective...
...whereas Americans couldn't possibly understand that level of loss.

Pain is pain regardless if it's a broken arm or a hangnail.
It isn't pleasent either way and doesn't need to be compared to learn that fact.

This isn't a competition with whomever has suffered the most being the winner.

Maybe this will better illustrate; what is worse, being beaten with a wooden bat or an aluminum bat?

Suffering hurts.

Still don't get it huh? Years of being bombed and occupied, remind me when that happened to the US again. The psychological effect that has on a continent is profound and one that your continent has no concept of.

 

[Jawsers]

Still don't get it huh? Years of being bombed and occupied, remind me when that happened to the US again. The psychological effect that has on a continent is profound and one that your continent has no concept of.

Wow, with the amount of moronic responses in this thread, this goes beyond it. Since when does it become a competition of who suffered more? You know what? In another 50 years no one alive in Europe will have experienced WW2, so what then? That effect is no longer relevant.

 

[A2K78]

How would you feel if people called for those with a very poor grasp of written English to be murdered?

Speech is speech and it should NEVER have any limits. those who believe there should be limits to speech are nothing but flatout prohibitionist and Its for this reason why I support the RIGHT of groups like the Westboro Church and Neo-Nazi/KKK to protest whomever they want provided they aren't violating the property rights of another individual.

 

[PzR Slim]

Wow, with the amount of moronic responses in this thread, this goes beyond it. Since when does it become a competition of who suffered more? You know what? In another 50 years no one alive in Europe will have experienced WW2, so what then? That effect is no longer relevant.

What? Hello? We are discussing why Europeans have a different outlook on life when compared to our American cousins. It's not a competition to see who suffered more. It was suggested that the suffering at the hands of the Nazi's during WWII of the Europeans was the reason that Freedom of Speech was not as valued in Europe as it so obviously is in the US. Why not read the debate and then more importantly understand it.

So do you think the extra suffering experienced by Europeans at the hands of the Nazi'd during WWII has any bearing on the seemingly different levels of importance we both put on Freedom of Speech. What can you lend to that debate?

 

[PzR Slim]

Speech is speech and it should NEVER have any limits. those believe there should be limits to speech are nothing but flatout prohibitionist and It for this why I support the RIGHT of groups like the Westboro Church and Neo-Nazi/KKK to protest whomever they want provided they aren't violating the property rights of another individual.

Well luckily for you I don't think there is a group of people calling for the murder of people with questionable written English skills.....

 

[Keef]

Or people who can't use the Edit button.

A2K78, instead of just citing property rights, you should include all rights in general. The hecklers will heckle because they can, as long as they're not violating the rights of others. Of course, that doesn't mean the others can't sue the hecklers for harassment because they certainly can, and they might even be successful

 

[Jawsers]

What? Hello? We are discussing why Europeans have a different outlook on life when compared to our American cousins. It's not a competition to see who suffered more. It was suggested that the suffering at the hands of the Nazi's during WWII of the Europeans was the reason that Freedom of Speech was not as valued in Europe as it so obviously is in the US. Why not read the debate and then more importantly understand it.

So do you think the extra suffering experienced by Europeans at the hands of the Nazi's during WWII has any bearing on the seemingly different levels of importance we both put on Freedom of Speech. What can you lend to that debate?

The point was, when you state, "one on your continent has no concept" is a complete fallacy, and lacked total thought. Gave me the impression of arrogance.

I'd like to think that the Nazi's did affected the way Europeans see Freedom of Speech, but there are probably many factors coming in to play as well. European society and culture is different than American culture, and within Europe itself their are a myriad of differences because how someone grew up and their socio-economic status.

Like I said before though, only the people who experienced WW2 in Europe who lived through it, have more concept than the younger generations of Europeans who have any experienced it through word and pictures.

 

[Biggles]

It was suggested that the suffering at the hands of the Nazi's during WWII of the Europeans was the reason that Freedom of Speech was not as valued in Europe as it so obviously is in the US.

Exactement, mon ami.

I'm not sure quite where Chamberlain enters into the whole freedom of speech/hate speech discussion, but since you bring it up:

What happened in Germany was about as far from "Free Speech" as one could get.
There is no absolute free speech since shouting Fire in a crowded theatre is still illegal as it should be.

Chamberlain was the one saying we should be nice to Germany because they had suffered so much already
and it could draw them into a war if they didn't try to appease them.
He took a position of weakness selling it as to spare the Germans suffering and heal the hard "feelings".
Feelings be damned, you do things because they are the right thing to do.

He should have called it like it was and stood up to begin with instead of worrying about the feelings of others.

Do you really think Europe alone holds the market on Loss due to "destruction"?
Is the Sadness of Loss any different between the causes of it?

Are you saying Europe has learned to cave into fear and hide from hard questions and words due to the threat of violence?

Europeans spent centuries fighting among themselves, culminating in the greatest bloodbath in human history in the Great War - a war in which millions of combatants died, wiping out almost an entire generation of young men. The French - those infamous "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" - lost 1.7 million soldiers, approximately 4.29% of the total population. Compare that with the losses suffered by the US in Vietnam of approximately 59,000, or 0.0324% of the US population at the time.

What do you think the the US public's feelings about the Vietnam war would have been if over 7.7 million US soldiers had died in the conflict? It is possible that might have made a somewhat different & stronger impression on the national pysche?

The events leading up to the Second World War are complex, but I would suggest that Chamberlain thinking "we should be nice to Germany" wasn't the primary factor. Appeasement was rather a desperate attempt to avert another monumental bloodbath in a continent still traumatized by the suffering of the First World War. What the "right thing to do" is not necessarily so clear at the time. I would just like to remind you that the US only entered the Second World War more than two years after the outbreak of war. Was that because the US had "learned to cave into fear and hide from hard questions and words due to the threat of violence?"

The lessons of the Second World War have little to do with "political correctness", but a lot to do with the ability of "hate-speech" to create a climate of fear, hatred & violence in which one sector of society (the Nazis & their enablers) feels empowered to persecute others (Jews, Communists, homosexuals, Gypsies, Poles, Slavs etc. etc.)

Like I said before though, only the people who experienced WW2 in Europe who lived through it, have more concept than the younger generations of Europeans who have any experienced it through word and pictures.

Yes, you're probably right, which is why a sensitivity to the potential dangers of hate-speech is ingrained in the political culture in places like Germany & England. So people do NOT forget.

I personally believe that private radio stations and individuals(in this case artist) have the right to voice their opposition of homosexuality, even if the lyrics themselves are go the point call for the murder of homosexuals. Why I do have this view? to simpily put, I don't believe there should be NO LIMIT to free speech as speech is an inalienable right.

On 7 April, 1994 Radio Television Libres Des Mille Collines in Rwanda aired a broadcast attributing the plane crash in which the president was killed to the RPF and a contingent of UN soldiers, as well as incitements to eliminate the “Tutsi cockroaches”. Within a few weeks a million Tutsi's had been murdered.

There is no absolute free speech since shouting Fire in a crowded theatre is still illegal as it should be.

Shouting fire in a crowded theatre? How quaint.


(Not equating any of this with the "Money For Nothing" ban - which remains asinine).

 

[Solid Lifters]

That's the funniest part of the whole thing. It's a parody of what your typical male might say about the performers of the song itself. In other words, they're suggesting that blue-collars see them (The Dire Straits) as "gay."

There's misogyny, homophobia and racism in the song. But it's all attributed to one character, and is part of the parody of the character in question.

Again, Word Nazis are taking over the meaning of a word. It's wrong and unfair. The 'F' word, dare I say it and get banned for trying to have an adult conversations for a change, is not a word that is exclusively 'racist' to homosexuals. It has different meanings. One, a bundle of sticks, two, an odd elderly female, and three somebody beyond annoying or a pest. Why do everybody instantly include this word for a negative remark against homosexuals when it never meant to be exclusive to them? The 'F' word has more than one meaning. Always have and always will. Need proof?

[YouTube]I7hQN4Amaeg[/YouTube]


This song is a story about two blue color working stiffs getting mad at a guy with long hair playing in a rock band. In a sense, making fun of the singer! One of the lines in the song is, "He's banging on the bongos like a chimpanze." Is this a racial slur towards black muscians? No to that, also.

Plus, there is a version of the song that doesn't include the 'F' word at all! So, why is this such a big issue? Seems like a lot of nonsense over nothing important at all. It reeks of politcal stimulus.

But, one gay guy complains and we have to shut everything down so he doesn't get his feelings hurt. Ridiculous.

 

[Max Powers]

Yes, no laws against speech would be preferable, always. Laws limiting the freedom of expression are the closest thing the government can attempt to control thought. If someone wants to prevent you from speaking your opinion it means they want to control your opinion and the opinions of those around you.

Opinionated speech is merely the vocal expression of thought. You want to put limits on that.


Which would make it even worse, as not only is it limiting the freedom of expression of individuals, but it is doing it as a knee-jerk reaction to a one-time event that was taken advantage of by politicians. Disgusting. Just like the political reactions surrounding the Tucson shooting.


I find it disgusting that you want to say the government is allowed to limit the expression of the people.


So, hate speech should be illegal because it means you are expressing a desire to do something illegal? The act that is the problem is already illegal. Why further restrictions to the point of restricting something that does not infringe on someone's rights?


Must explain why the Westboro Baptist Church has about 30 members, mostly all relatives. That traveling all over the country, spreading their messages of hate has really bolstered their numbers. All those KKK marches has made their membership swell from as many as 5 million in the 1920s to an estimated whopping 5,000 today.


Wait, so you actually have a legal right to not be offended? Wow.

Reduced freedom of expression traded for freedom to not be offended...I just...wow.


You can defend expression of thought with it though. You seem to be trying to say that somehow speech is defending something more. It is not.


While any opposing speech was outlawed. When you jail or kill those that don't buy into the rhetoric it is easy to rule by popular vote.


I can think of a few instances where freedom of speech (actually violation of laws limiting speech) led to the end of oppression.

I usually won't quote a post just to say you took the words right out of my mouth, but you did, and managed to express it much more eloquently than I did.

 

[ledhed]

look ..its Palins fault ...just accept it and move on ...send Canada a edit button.

 

[OG_Wretch]

I'm not sure quite where Chamberlain enters into the whole freedom of speech/hate speech discussion, but since you bring it up:



Europeans spent centuries fighting among themselves, culminating in the greatest bloodbath in human history in the Great War - a war in which millions of combatants died, wiping out almost an entire generation of young men. The French - those infamous "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" - lost 1.7 million soldiers, approximately 4.29% of the total population. Compare that with the losses suffered by the US in Vietnam of approximately 59,000, or 0.0324% of the US population at the time.

What do you think the the US public's feelings about the Vietnam war would have been if over 7.7 million US soldiers had died in the conflict? It is possible that might have made a somewhat different & stronger impression on the national pysche?

The events leading up to the Second World War are complex, but I would suggest that Chamberlain thinking "we should be nice to Germany" wasn't the primary factor. Appeasement was rather a desperate attempt to avert another monumental bloodbath in a continent still traumatized by the suffering of the First World War. What the "right thing to do" is not necessarily so clear at the time. I would just like to remind you that the US only entered the Second World War more than two years after the outbreak of war. Was that because the US had "learned to cave into fear and hide from hard questions and words due to the threat of violence?"

The lessons of the Second World War have little to do with "political correctness", but a lot to do with the ability of "hate-speech" to create a climate of fear, hatred & violence in which one sector of society (the Nazis & their enablers) feels empowered to persecute others (Jews, Communists, homosexuals, Gypsies, Poles, Slavs etc. etc.)




Shouting fire in a crowded theatre? How quaint.

Yes some of us remember the Great War and how Fathers Brothers and Sons didn't come back from that one either.
Granted it was only a mere 100,000 KIAs so once again due to Europe's greater suffering you hold a tighter reign on truth.
Maybe because we didn't want to be involved in anymore of your moronic conflict of the decade
due to our previous losses is what took us so long to get over there in WWII.

Seems I recall a great deal of our sailors were packing goods off to Europe in ships during both in any case.

JFTR, the reason we jumped in was due to a little attack on our Navy and people.
Interesting story you might want to look at sometime that happened in a place called Pearl Harbor, in Hawaii.

Plenty of us were fighting in Asia and Europe already though because they felt compelled to and the money and excitement was fair.

Yeah, we know nothing of loss or destruction over here eccept for a brief time back in the 1860's.
Seems we got a jump on Europe in practicing Total War or at least Sherman did.
We did lose some 620,000 soldiers and untold cilivians but it was only 10% of the Northern males and 30% of the Southern males.
Had little or no effect on how we see things us being so insulated and thick as well; over here in the land of milk an honey.

Yeah, so the French have us beat out in dead people but I always saw the Foreign Legion as a bunch of tough customers
and the Resistance did a fair job as well I understood the SAS to report?
Did cheese keep well out there in those desert forts?

I can't keep this up as my stomach is turning since I'm not used to playing smarmy pompus ass but I'll conclued here soon.

Once again by virtue of greater suffering Europe has a better grasp of truth.
What Hitler was spewing was not Free speech that stupid Germans bought into.
A few for certain sure but the rest were scared crapless of their neighbors and/or kids turning them in as traitors.
The same crap was put out over here at about the same time and while some bought into it
the vast majority did not and thankfully the governement had not been infiltrated by socialists to make that crap manditory.

Did all that have an effect on what was allowed as free speech over there?
Because a bunch of thugs were standing on the corner barking BS?
We have those over here to this day and they are great fun to see, point and laugh at.
Probably get jailed in Europe for laughing and pointing at others in public?
Let them try to act on the supposed hate and then see what happens.

That is the crux of our law here and what keeps us free.
You can't punish people before a crime has been commited and you cannot stop or prevent all crime.

I was certain most of the British people and Europeans were smarter than to believe mere words could hurt them...
...sure I can see how you could draw the conclusion but it doesn't ring as true to me.
I guess it's out of the people's hands there anyway since others are the ones to make the rules for you.

Me personally? I only act on words when they are a direct personal threat otherwise I laugh at most of the things people say.

 

[blaaah]

Me personally? I only act on words when they are a direct personal threat otherwise I laugh at most of the things people say.

Direct personal threats are the only things that have an effect on telesales cold callers. Do you work in this field?

 

[OG_Wretch]

Direct personal threats are the only things that have an effect on telesales cold callers. Do you work in this field?

No and if I don't know the number on the caller ID they can talk to the machine.

 

[Gerseph]

I don't know if anybody else was aware of this but Clear Channel (One of the biggest US radio companies) banned many songs, including Stairway to Heaven, after September 11th. "It was too depressing." So there you go Canadians, you're not the only ones.

Edit: I am very sympathetic to those that lost their lives and their families. ...But come on.

 

[TomDrum]

A similar thing happened here where a TV commercial from a series of funny commercials for a local insurance company was banned. It made reference to Indian call centres and ONE person complained. After that SINGLE complaint, it was removed.

Quite ridiculous to me!

 

[blaaah]

Just to give an example of crazy complaints. My mother is an artist/painter and had an exhibition at a local Hospital, her work is colourful and abstract. She received a telephone call to say one of her big paintings had to be taken down from display because someone complained that some of the paint lines/curves making up part of the picture looked like the letters ANC.

 

[Biggles]

Once again by virtue of greater suffering Europe has a better grasp of truth.

I don't know why you repeatedly insist on putting it that way. That is not my point at all - my point is only that different experiences lead to different conclusions. And I'm not accusing the US of anything, I was only responding to your suggestion that Europeans had "learned to cave into fear and hide from hard questions and words due to the threat of violence."

That the United States was reluctant to get dragged into the First World War was entirely sensible & I suspect was partly due to the terrible experience of fighting the first great modern "total war" in the 1860s. When the US finally entered both world wars it was because it was no longer possible to avoid doing so. That seems to me to be the best possible justification for going to war.

If Germany today has laws restricting the freedom to say certain things, it's because their history, their experiences in the past have made them extremely sensitive to the possible consequences of hate-speech.

You can't punish people before a crime has been commited and you cannot stop or prevent all crime.

Is issuing a death threat not against the law in the US?

 

[OG_Wretch]

It's because you keep trying to separate our sufferings of loss by saying they aren't the same.
And my point is that suffering is suffering.
Coming to different conclusions is less about experience and more about mindset.

What ever most of us here have is what we've fought/worked for through physical sacrifice and long hours.
Giving up a freedom out of a fear of what could happen if we don't means we no longer are free.
Yes, it creates a little extra work and asks for more strength of character to hear
unpleasent things but at least our enemys aren't pushed into hiding and we can remain true to ourselves.
"Anyone who would trade freedom for security deserves neither."

As far as Death Threats?
One only gets into trouble making them toward our President...
...legally in trouble.

If one was to tell me they were going to kill me and made me believe it
they would most likely die shortly after the words reached me
and I would be cleared of any wrong doing by the rule of self-defense.


That is the big difference I can see.
We are allowed to defend our lives against the threat of violence up to
using deadly force in most cases where serious threat is involved.

 

[A2K78]

I don't know if anybody else was aware of this but Clear Channel (One of the biggest US radio companies) banned many songs, including Stairway to Heaven, after September 11th. "It was too depressing." So there you go Canadians, you're not the only ones.

Edit: I am very sympathetic to those that lost their lives and their families. ...But come on.

I've heard of this, however in the case of Clear Channel as a private entity they had every right to ban those songs. Its also for this reason why Comedy Central was well within their rights to censor/yank that one episode of South Park.

 

[Keef]

Is issuing a death threat not against the law in the US?

Not necessarily. If I tell my neighbor I'm going to kill him then no, it's not illegal. If I tell my classmate I'm going to kill him then yes, it is.

Even if it were not on the books, existing rules like disturbing the peace or harassment would cover it, and restraining orders can be filed. See, so many of these laws pick and choose bases that are already covered in order to fit an agenda or to please a group of people or to gather votes at the polls. So-called hate crimes are one of them. The law that was meant to appease minority groups by preventing racism is racist itself.

 

[blaaah]

Not necessarily. If I tell my neighbor I'm going to kill him then no, it's not illegal. If I tell my classmate I'm going to kill him then yes, it is.

Can you elaborate more on this so I can understand why?

 

[Biggles]

It's because you keep trying to separate our sufferings of loss by saying they aren't the same.
And my point is that suffering is suffering.

They aren't the same. I don't agree that "suffering is suffering". A slap in the face may be painful, but it is not the same as a gunshot to the head. Losing 59,000 lives in Vietnam was traumatic for the US, but not nearly as traumatic as the loss of 7,700,000 lives would have been. Banning the song "Money For Nothing" in Canada is not the same as the Germans banning pro-Nazi, anti-semitic hate-speech. There's no justification for doing the former, there might be some justification for the latter.

What ever most of us here have is what we've fought/worked for through physical sacrifice and long hours.

So what would you say to the millions who lost everything - homes, possessions, lives, the lives of their children, in the Holocaust, or in the Rwandan genocide. Would telling them:

Giving up a freedom out of a fear of what could happen if we don't means we no longer are free.
Yes, it creates a little extra work and asks for more strength of character to hear
unpleasent things but at least our enemys aren't pushed into hiding and we can remain true to ourselves.

really adequately cover it?

The circumstances in the US are, & have been, historically quite different from other places in the world.

If one was to tell me they were going to kill me and made me believe it
they would most likely die shortly after the words reached me
and I would be cleared of any wrong doing by the rule of self-defense.

Really? I seriously doubt that.

 

[OG_Wretch]

They aren't the same. I don't agree that "suffering is suffering". A slap in the face may be painful, but it is not the same as a gunshot to the head. Losing 59,000 lives in Vietnam was traumatic for the US, but not nearly as traumatic as the loss of 7,700,000 lives would have been. Banning the song "Money For Nothing" in Canada is not the same as the Germans banning pro-Nazi, anti-semitic hate-speech. There's no justification for doing the former, there might be some justification for the latter.

Agree to disagree. I don't see life as a contest to see who is the biggest victim

So what would you say to the millions who lost everything - homes, possessions, lives, the lives of their children, in the Holocaust, or in the Rwandan genocide. Would telling them:

Yes, they should have fought harder to end on top.

really adequately cover it?

Plus what I added.

The circumstances in the US are, & have been, historically quite different from other places in the world.

Yes, I keep forgeting how easy it is here what with all the milk and honey flowing down the streets of gold.
Yup, handed everything I've got and it was so easy that I've lost it all twice just so it could be given me again. :rolleyes


Really? I seriously doubt that.

Doubt it? Hire your biggest goon and have them come down here and threaten my life and watch how it unfolds.
Make sure he's believeable though or I'll just have to wing him.

You see we do hold people responsible for what they say but it's more on an individual and very personal basis.

I'll look for some cases that point out the very result I've purported when I get time later.
I do know of two personally where threats were made, the victims of assault responded with deadly force and are free to this day.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Back to "Money for Nothing":

Taking the GTPlanet site's Acceptable Use Policy "AUP" (always like this in combination of freedom of speach):

# You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.
# You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.
# You will not post or link to content that is obscene or sexually oriented.
# You will not use profanity in the forums, nor link to content which contains offensive language without sufficient warning.

It seems debatable to post the song lyrics on the forum, I looked up the issues around the song on Wikipedia and they are quite explicit about where people find the song, sexist, racist, and homophobic.

So to clarify my view on this:
1) I completely support the AUP and do believe this shows that most people think some restriction in freedom of speech is acceptable/needed.
2) It is not simple as a rule and there will always be discussion on it.
3) There is an authority (I generally now refer to the ubermensch in this context) that sets the norms, what is ethical and what is not. On the forum this is the people holding the ban hammer, in a country this is the government; If you do not like the ubermensch ruling over you, Tunisia 14 January 2010 Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali stories can be your example.

 

[Famine]

It seems debatable to post the song lyrics on the forum

Then I'll cut through the debate for you:

See the little faggot with the earring and the makeup?
Yeah buddy, that's his own hair.
That little faggot got his own jet airplane,
That little faggot he's a millionaire

The song is written from the perspective of a manual labourer jealously talking with a colleague about musicians - how they'd rip on them for looking like "faggots" and wearing make-up, yet they're doing manual labour (installing microwave ovens, custom kitchen delivery) while the "little faggot" is a millionaire with his own plane. That ain't workin', that's the way to do it.

Of course the point of the song is to ridicule people who mock others for the way they look and act, so congratulations for taking offence at a word and missing the point, Mr. ComplainyCanadianPerson.

1) I completely support the AUP and do believe this shows that most people think some restriction in freedom of speech is acceptable/needed.

GTPlanet's AUP is irrelevant, as GTP is a private place. You have no freedoms in a private place besides those granted to you - and that you accept - before you enter. There should be no such limitations in the public domain and that's what "freedom of speech" means.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I agree with the misinterpretation of the Canadians on the context of the text. Good to bring this up.

Still also understand people might have trouble with the term "faggot" being expressed as a "normal" term, while finding it harassing to a certain group.


I'll admit that I have a lot of trouble with this "private place" concept.

I did see you wrote very correctly: "There should be no such limitations in the public domain".

Agree AUP is linked to GTPlanet.

But the streets are linked to a state (I do not agree with the concept, but they are), they again restrict religious practices like a Male Digambara monk running around naked, they might restrict my freedom of speech, ....

If you stay to live in a country you seem to accept the restrictions they put in place to run this country (as you accept the AUP if you want to be on GTPlanet), even if it is a restriction on "freedom of speech".

If I want to go to the another country, since I believe their restrictions are better they might not let me in (as GTPlanet can refuse members or restrict parts of the site to premium only.)

The issue is that even in your "private place" you need to obey laws, some laws might only apply to the public domain, some apply generally.
e.g.: from what I have seen in this GTPlanet "private place", a part of the moderators task is to protect the site from legal attacks against the site that could be caused by activity of members on the site.

So
1) the public domain with no limitation is very conceptual.
2) the private place where a limited group decides the rules is very conceptual.

So what is the point?

Wherever you are there are some things you can decide and some restrictions you need to keep to. Always debatable, since always a matter of interpretation.

this discussion seems to go a Human Rights thread topic though.

I did bring it up there, a justice system (based on laws) is there to bring justice when your rights have been violated and to discourage people to violate the rights of others.

So no state will protect you from harassment, but I find it always very disturbing that people state "Freedom of speech" when the they want to attack measures that are there to discourage people to
* behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner,
* harass,
* threaten,
* or attack
any individual or any group.

 

[Famine]

Public space is private property that belongs to every individual of that state. That means there cannot be any rules of discrimination, because any discriminatory rule impinges the property rights of an individual.

People are happy to take the thin end of the wedge with discrimination - no-one may be refused service because of their skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, name - but, for some reason, they baulk at all the associated baggage. Baggage like "If black people can call each other n****r, white people must be allowed to use the word too", otherwise you're discriminating - drawing lines that demarcate people based on skin colour. Baggage like making jokes about disabled or homosexual people, or Jews or Muslims. If you say "making fun of "x" is off limits" you're discriminating using "x" as a basis. We have to allow everyone to say everything, or we're guilty of discrimination ourselves, using arbitrary lines.

This means that freedom of expression cannot ever, morally, be limited in public places (including state-run radio channels). It means you can call me a :censored:ing 🤬 in a public place and not be a criminal (you might even be right). It means you can deny the holocaust, or global warming, or evolution and not be a criminal. It means a song with the word "faggot" in it can be played on the radio regardless of whether it upsets someone.

Earlier examples of limited freedom of expression by rule of law are based on existing laws. I cannot call someone a paedophile, print this allegation on flyers and distribute it around my hometown as it'd be a lie - I'd be libelling them (or slandering them if I did it out loud). I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded place without being liable for the injuries that result from it. These things don't limit freedom of expression, rather prevent people from breaking more fundamental rights.

"I may dislike what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


Private property, on the other hand, is "My house, my rules, like it or get out".

 

[OG_Wretch]

There are anti-stalking laws and the individual can file for orders of protection if they can show threatening behavior to be evident to a judge.
Quite easy really and asking local law enforcement to mediate works as well...
...if you are unable to convince your harrasser/stalker to cease.

If they are already breaking the law then the law will be on your side with nearly whatever you do to them.
I say nearly because some cops won't help you torture them into submission.

It isn't the wild west here but you aren't hindered in protecting yourself...
...where I choose to live anyway.
If it does change I'll likely move to Texas where you can shoot tresspassers/thieves in your yard with fanfare from the neighbors.
I think the cheering could screwup my focus though.
Hmmm, maybe back to Alaska would be better.

 

[Famine]

Quite recently over here there was a brief uproar over a white comedian using the "n" word. I had a good chuckle to myself as all the people accusing him of being racist had both missed the point of the joke and were guilty of racism themselves, since I don't recall there being an uproar about Chris Rock's entire "N*****s" stand-up routine. I don't think there was a sudden outbreak of sanity amongst the complainers - rather he said something slightly more objectionable the following week.

The original joke was with regards to the origins of the Commonwealth Games - British people taking over foreign countries and then making their new subjects compete in events for them. "I say, your n*****s are faster than mine!". Quite similar to the "faggots" line in Money for Nothing, in many respects.


The following week he made a joke about the disabled son of a D-list celebrity-whore (whom she allegedly contributed to the disability of, by allegedly smoking, drinking and doing cocaine throughout the pregnancy, as it was the child of her ex-boyfriend) and her cage-fighter husband, by remarking that she only married a cage-fighter "so that there's someone strong enough to stop [her disabled son] from :censored:ing her", and everyone forgot about the n*****s. Curiously.