[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by blackzero: *
i still remember the hooo haaa made by the muslim ppl in america when Bush mentioned that it is a crusade against terrorism..
wasn't that his freedom of speech the muslims were upset about and wanted him to retract his words?
isnt that hipocrisy from the muslims then?
[/QUOTE]
Obvioulsy it still has'nt registered!
This post is about the claim that you have so called freedom of speech and you can quote bush, muslims, hindus, nazis, zionist whoever you like.
You cannot escape from the fact that one mans so called freedm is anothers problem!
These people have called for restrictions on football names , muslims have called for restriction on another issue and so on and so on.
therefore confusion reigns because people say something then their banned and the system is full of holes!
Lets talk about freedom of speech. The KKK have it. The Neo Nazis have it. The bible belt has it. Have you ever met a southern bible belter? That is not offensive? Huh blackzero and hskhan? You speak of freedom of speech and responsibility. Where is the responsibility in that?
So quick to judge and put down. Yet you all can never defend your own backyard. Blackzero i am still waiting on two conversations with you. One on American history. The other on democracy.
If you're talking about freedom of speech, of course they have it along with the KKK et al. But I read many of the posts as describing an over reaction to the names, that the names are perfectly acceptable and noble with no intent to have an aggressive or negative conotation.
They've got the right to call their team whatever they want, but they will be called to the carpet by others exercising free speech questioning the purpose of these names.
Is a KKK team called the Koon-Killers as noble in the naming of their team? I think they're all in the same category.
And AK, it was Muslim leaders as well who asked for the teams to reconsider if I read the original post correctly.
As you are taking the case of US, i guess you should look up the definition of freedom of speech as outlined within the US Constitution and the statues of law based on multitude of cases dealt by the US courts.
there is no absolute freedom of speech, and as such that is not claimed to be the case in these articles of constitution and statutes of law.
Therefore your argument falls flat on its face... as you are claiming that the freedom of speech that the American's talk about is absolute.. and that is not the case.
There are cases when such freedoms are curtailed, and that is identified within these articles and statutes as well. e.g. when state security is of concern, then you are given a gagging order by the courts after request of the government .. and yes the government (the executie) can't give you gagging order by itself..
In any case, you have more 'freedom of speech' in the 'evil US of A' than any other country in the world...
after all, this server and web portal is based in the US of A where at least you can voice your point... whether your point has any merit is contenstable.. but hey.. you got the right to say your mind.
Very well explained, BZ. As US citizens, we are allowed these freedoms, but along with freedom comes a responsibility to each other. Like Blackzero has pointed out, we do not claim to have absolute freedom, which is more along the lines of anarchy, not democracy.
Even though all of the political correctness crap has certainly blurred this freedom, we are still protected by the same laws. And as much as I would like see it illegal to distribut any KKK or neo-nazi or garbage in the US, I also understand that once this happened, where would it stop? Who else would the government decide to silence? I tend to enjoy our system of freedoms, not that agree with all of them.
I suppose this freedom could be confusing, though. After all, we are free to yell "Fire!!!" in a crowded theater, but we will be arrested for it.:)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by blackzero: *
I guess you still don't get the point.
As you are taking the case of US, i guess you should look up the definition of freedom of speech as outlined within the US Constitution and the statues of law based on multitude of cases dealt by the US courts.
there is no absolute freedom of speech, and as such that is not claimed to be the case in these articles of constitution and statutes of law.
Therefore your argument falls flat on its face... as you are claiming that the freedom of speech that the American's talk about is absolute.. and that is not the case.
There are cases when such freedoms are curtailed, and that is identified within these articles and statutes as well. e.g. when state security is of concern, then you are given a gagging order by the courts after request of the government .. and yes the government (the executie) can't give you gagging order by itself..
In any case, you have more 'freedom of speech' in the 'evil US of A' than any other country in the world...
after all, this server and web portal is based in the US of A where at least you can voice your point... whether your point has any merit is contenstable.. but hey.. you got the right to say your mind.
[/QUOTE]
This portal is in the United states
my god now you really are clutching at straws are'nt you zero!
well well well
when the biggest democracy and the land of the free can have football league teams called santa clarita crusaders then whats wrong
with mujahideen or jihadis
i think you can go and voice your opposition to the name santa claus crusaders as well.
the teams had a freedom to name themselves whatever, people had the right to complain. I dont think there is a reason to complain but some people felt that there was, so let them complain.
Well, the only update I got was on CNN news this morning, that the tournament went off without a hitch on the weekend. Team "Soldiers of Allah" voluntarily (?) decided to change their name to some thing else. "Intefada" decided their name is good. They played as planned. Don't know who won.
AK47, did you even read the post carefully? No one forced the team to change their name. As for the jewish human rights commision, its the same freedom that allowed them to protest. If the team had some dignity, they could have kept their name, rather than changing it.
[QUOTE]
Team "Soldiers of Allah" voluntarily (?) decided to change their name to some thing else. "Intefada" decided their name is good. They played as planned. Don't know who won.
[/QUOTE]
It was a split decision, "Soldiers of Allah" was ranked #1 according to the BCS and "Intefada" won the coaches poll.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *
Who mentioned forced name changes!
Some people don't even have a clue about the post and just go off on a tangent!
[/QUOTE]
It was the freedom of speech that allowed them to come up with that name. They changed the name themselves, no one forced them to. Who exactly are you criticizing? Read the post carefully again.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *
If its freedom of speech as claimed then secular extremists should have no problem with it, argument ends!
[/QUOTE]
Like Blackzero said
They had their right for freedom of speech .. and the opponents have their right to disagree with that... which they have done
It was a question of who shouted louder, wasnt it?
They had their right for freedom of speech .. and the opponents have their right to disagree with that... which they have done
It was a question of who shouted louder, wasnt it?
[/QUOTE]
People complained and people where pressured and people where offended some of them offended for wrong reasons because they don;t even know what the names meant but that is neither here nor there.
end result freedom of speech is flawed its applied in certain situations for certain groups of people and it causes many problems.
People complained and people where pressured and people where offended some of them offended for wrong reasons because they don;t even know what the names meant but that is neither here nor there.
end result freedom of speech is flawed its applied in certain situations for certain groups of people and it causes many problems.
[/QUOTE]
Let me see some examples of Freedom of speech other than the disgaceful secular democratic way..
1) The Taliban Model
2) The Iranian model
3) The old Communist model
4) The Saudi Model
5) The infamous Law 295-C Model
Give me your best Model.
There will alwayd be failures in any approach to an issue such as Freedom of Speech, so the one which can fit most requirements of people survive and that is why the democratic, secular way (contrary to your beliefs) is popular all over the world.