World Politics

[theyoungest]

Agreed.
I think free speech includes hate speech. I think Wilders should be allowed to say what he truly thinks about Muslims. I find his views hypocritical and quite untrue, but if he is not physically harming them or doing something that is way out of line, then let him say what he likes. When he leaves Australia, all he will be is a distant memory.

Free speech is indeed an important right, people have fought and died for it. That's why I think Wilders uses it too lightly, he literally says everything he thinks. Wilders himself isn't exactly forthcoming toward people who say what they truly think of him.

A Dutch comedian said something (in jest) which I think has a ring of truth to it: maybe if you remove his bodyguards he'll try to keep his arguments within reason. Yes, we know there are extremist muslims, must you really tempt them?

 

[auscyclefan94]

Free speech is indeed an important right, people have fought and died for it. That's why I think Wilders uses it too lightly, he literally says everything he thinks. Wilders himself isn't exactly forthcoming toward people who say what they truly think of him.

A Dutch comedian said something (in jest) which I think has a ring of truth to it: maybe if you remove his bodyguards he'll try to keep his arguments within reason. Yes, we know there are extremist muslims, must you really tempt them?

I think you make some good points. Wilders could do with toning what he says down a bit because it does incite unnecessary confrontation. He can still say what he thinks but I don't think it does himself any good. The proposition of Wilders being without body guards is not a wise idea for any politician who speaks his mind. I think he has a good idea of what people think of him. Whether he would say what he thinks of others without people protecting him is another matter completely.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Ferminal, did you watch the WA election debate this evening? If so, what did you think? I watched it and thought that McGowan one the first half of the debate but Barnett was stronger in the second half.

Pretty clear that Barnett will win quite comprehensively on March 9, but the real question is the margin.

 

[Ferminal]

I hardly follow state politics at all, is it online somewhere? The Labor platform is a joke, something like "our train line is better".... Colin's Canal all over again.

There's not really any momentum for a change of government (that said there wasn't in 2008 or when Gallop won) so can't see how Labor gain seats. I'm not really a fan of Barnett but if the Liberals win hopefully they have a clear majority.

 

[AndyMMT]

Aussie banks did not go under like the US banks because they were liberally but adequately regulated by the Hawke Government, backin the '80s. The Australian banks did not hand out ridiculous loans to people, contrary to the US. When the US housing markets collapsed and the actual value of assets such as houses collapsed. The banks collapsed as a result of that because people did not have the capacity to pay back such a loan for their houses, whose selling value was well above it's actual value. When they could not pay back their loans, the banks go down the dunny. There are other factor as well involved in that, but Australia's economic polices from Hawke to Howard have been rather neoliberal and even then, Hawke still adequately protected the financial sector.

Firstly I will say this is neither a left of right thing, its purely on techincal banking matters I am commenting here.

Ok yes couple of things I agree with in Leverage between Aus v US (and UK)
also yep doesnt matter which stripe Nulabour did exactly the same as the tories wrt financial sector.

There is a huge BUT with the Aussie banks in that they are funded by the US money markets in USD which did give the banks and government a problem in that they couldnt just print to back them up via the central bank unlike the US, roughly similar to Icelands problem (Albeit that was a much bigger scale compared to size of country/debt) Nowadays FRB is a bit of a myth they just dont work like that...they are a spreads business borrowing short to lend long.
Why they would say they are safe is pretty much what they had to do, you only have to look at what happened to Northern Rock in the UK.. got out that they were using emergency funding from the BoE and bang our first bank run in a couple hundred years...sometimes politicians etc really do have to lie.

We can see the funding through your NIIP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position it might shock you what a poor position Aus is in!.


My only question is really why they fund like that, someone i need to ask but cant get hold of him at the moment. I maybe wrong about that its lack of sov debt.

BTW can we get off Keen, I like Steve and like his work but its not my main concern..... its the other one I mentioned that I "follow".


PS quickly on Ferminals point about "keynesians" Joan Robinson called the Neo-keynsians "B*****D Keynesians" and it is pretty apt.

 

[AndyMMT]

Well I don't know if subsidies in the car industry are the way to go (so I'll say no, to quote Floyd), but I do side with Kaldor's views on the importance of manufacturing. I don't think the world collectively can continue trying to make money out of nothing forever.

Firstly I do not like subsidies for private companies but of course its happening all over, socialism for the rich the rest of us get almost a Rothbardian nightmare!

But really to take up Kaldors point (I certainly wouldnt have the nerve to dispute him!) Is that going to solve the unemployment issue as the world is a different place from the 1940s/50s? I dont know if you have been following the "robot" debate? (hate the robot tag its very simplistic of the problem) we do seem to be coming to that point where technology is going to take over most tasks,not in bad way bring it on as far as I am concerned...but it is going to cause major issues and work itself is going to be have to be redifined. Thoughts?


"neoclassicals with sticky wages" nice one

 

[auscyclefan94]

I hardly follow state politics at all, is it online somewhere? The Labor platform is a joke, something like "our train line is better".... Colin's Canal all over again.

There's not really any momentum for a change of government (that said there wasn't in 2008 or when Gallop won) so can't see how Labor gain seats. I'm not really a fan of Barnett but if the Liberals win hopefully they have a clear majority.

It is probably on the ABC. Here is the link if you want to watch it
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-...-off-in-the-leaders-debate/4528842?section=wa
Barnett will have win big enough that he likely won't even need the Nationals.

Firstly I will say this is neither a left of right thing, its purely on techincal banking matters I am commenting here.

Ok yes couple of things I agree with in Leverage between Aus v US (and UK)
also yep doesnt matter which stripe Nulabour did exactly the same as the tories wrt financial sector.

There is a huge BUT with the Aussie banks in that they are funded by the US money markets in USD which did give the banks and government a problem in that they couldnt just print to back them up via the central bank unlike the US, roughly similar to Icelands problem (Albeit that was a much bigger scale compared to size of country/debt) Nowadays FRB is a bit of a myth they just dont work like that...they are a spreads business borrowing short to lend long.
Why they would say they are safe is pretty much what they had to do, you only have to look at what happened to Northern Rock in the UK.. got out that they were using emergency funding from the BoE and bang our first bank run in a couple hundred years...sometimes politicians etc really do have to lie.

We can see the funding through your NIIP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position it might shock you what a poor position Aus is in!.

My only question is really why they fund like that, someone i need to ask but cant get hold of him at the moment. I maybe wrong about that its lack of sov debt.

BTW can we get off Keen, I like Steve and like his work but its not my main concern..... its the other one I mentioned that I "follow".

PS quickly on Ferminals point about "keynesians" Joan Robinson called the Neo-keynsians "B*****D Keynesians" and it is pretty apt.

Firstly, what country do you live in?

I can see what you are saying with the foreign debt but I am less worried about it if it is private debt rather than public debt. Obviously that private foreign debt that is spoken about, was largely increased during our boom period during the 2000's. Much of the debt is increased because of the high foreign investment in Australia and people decreasing their savings. House prices were naturally very high due to the housing bubble in Australia over that time and because our economy was growing so strong, our housing market either saw people taking out loans for renovations or purchasing a house. This along with infrastructure projects saw foreign private debt rise. By the end of 2007, Australia was left $70 billion worth of net assets. Those were boom conditions so increasing the private debt was going to happen.

Australia unfortunately now has a Government that spent like crazy to stimulate the economy but unfortunately to little effect. Unfortunately, we have not got very much out of that debt. What is really annoying is that we have massively increased debt yet we are in the middle of an 140 year terms of trade boom which many are predicting will taper off. Australia should really paying down the debt it brought up during the GFC. This graph shows Australia's foreign debt

There is a better graph of this, but here is one that paints the picture.
http://barnabyisright.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/commonwealthfixedcouponbonds_jul00-may11_b.jpg

 

[Ferminal]

acf - McGowan seemed reasonably prepared and probably spoke better, but lacked substance. Made no sense at all on debt.

But really to take up Kaldors point (I certainly wouldnt have the nerve to dispute him!) Is that going to solve the unemployment issue as the world is a different place from the 1940s/50s? I dont know if you have been following the "robot" debate? (hate the robot tag its very simplistic of the problem) we do seem to be coming to that point where technology is going to take over most tasks,not in bad way bring it on as far as I am concerned...but it is going to cause major issues and work itself is going to be have to be redifined. Thoughts?

Primary sector can only deliver finite wealth. Financial sector is zero sum. I believe if you want to grow and develop you need to learn, research, build, invent, explore... Don't need to look further than the OECD for the last 5 years. The only economies doing any good are those who had viable non-services sectors to fall back on.

Think these questions are bigger than economics though. Goes to the heart of the political, social, and corporate establishment. The western world is yet to produce a leader (in any institution) capable of looking beyond the horizon.

 

[auscyclefan94]

If you don't mind me asking, will you be voting this time around, Ferminal?

Btw, here is a clip showing the far-left groups being the ones who are inciting and starting the violence at the Geert Wilders event. Throwing people to the ground who have paid their own money to go to an event is disgusting. The real threats to OUR FREEDOM in Australia are the far-left groups.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zH6qI30Nc2s

 

[movingtarget]

Free speech is indeed an important right, people have fought and died for it. That's why I think Wilders uses it too lightly, he literally says everything he thinks. Wilders himself isn't exactly forthcoming toward people who say what they truly think of him.

A Dutch comedian said something (in jest) which I think has a ring of truth to it: maybe if you remove his bodyguards he'll try to keep his arguments within reason. Yes, we know there are extremist muslims, must you really tempt them?

I find it refreshing that someone says what they think even though they are getting death threats etc.......... Let's face it, the extremists in some religions think they are beyond criticism and think anyone who disagrees with them should be put to the sword literally. So you could say that they take their extremism even further than Wilders. I agree with some of Wilders ideas and thoughts but like other radicals it all tends to get a bit hysterical. Still I don't deny his right to say what he wants even though he is always a target and seems to live within a security cocoon. Without his security he would last 5 minutes.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I doubt this poll is a true reflection of what people think but it is sad to think how much personality politics plays a role in this country.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...d-alp-leadership/story-fncynkc6-1226583699537

 

[Alphabet]

The real threats to OUR FREEDOM in Australia are the far-left groups.

Oh come on now. The further you are on the left, the more you follow Marx's original manifesto, and therefore the more in support you are of a system where the state will "wither away and die". People who advocate the reduction of the individual's rights and the omnipotence of the state aren't far leftists, they're fascists who also want a command economy.

Far-leftism/anarchism is as close to 'freedom' as anybody can get. The kind of 'freedom' we get now in the modern capitalist world can be compared to a prisoner sitting in a cell without being able to see the bars, thinking he is free.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Oh come on now. The further you are on the left, the more you follow Marx's original manifesto, and therefore the more in support you are of a system where the state will "wither away and die". People who advocate the reduction of the individual's rights and the omnipotence of the state aren't far leftists, they're fascists who also want a command economy.

Far-leftism/anarchism is as close to 'freedom' as anybody can get. The kind of 'freedom' we get now in the modern capitalist world can be compared to a prisoner sitting in a cell without being able to see the bars, thinking he is free.

What a load of rubbish. Have you ever heard of classical liberalism, libertarianism or even in some respects, conservatism? Those ideologies are traditionally on the right of the spectrum and support freedom. You can not have actual social freedom within a society if you don't economic freedom. Those two ideals are axiomatic. Rather hard to take someone seriously who thinks socialists are really those who are pro-freedom fighters. They aren't, especially modern day socialists. Did you actually see what those socialists did at the Wilders meeting? That is not freedom.

Most of those leftists are those who want to reduce individual rights and in turn want to expand the control of the state. Give me a break. You are completely deluded.

 

[rhubroma]

Agreed.
I think free speech includes hate speech. I think Wilders should be allowed to say what he truly thinks about Muslims. I find his views hypocritical and quite untrue, but if he is not physically harming them or doing something that is way out of line, then let him say what he likes. When he leaves Australia, all he will be is a distant memory.

You have to consider, however, that Wilders is a species of fascist. Fascism was born of nationalism, colonialism and racism. It's ridiculous aspects should not obscure its wickedness. When considering a persona like Wilders, this is a detail that should not be forgotten.

I don't defend in any way religious fanaticism, especially when it is merely a "justification" to behave criminally in the name of someone's god and under the umbrella of self-righteousness; nor do I advocate placing limits on a right to free speech - to the contrary.

Yet the right to free speech comes with its abuses, however sanctioned by the law (upon which I'm totally in agreement), in the form of gratuitous provocations and instigating hate. Now given Europe's criminal background with fascism, means that one such as Wilders must only be condemned without reservation as a circumscribed product of reactionary hostility, and a perverse nationalism that simply belongs to a dark era that’s best left behind. Of course a right to free speech can be conversely deployed, that is as an anecdote to someone else's venom.

Imagine if the likes of Wilders were to take power and be capable of making his ideology "official," legalized and put into practice? This brings to mind the "good things" Mussolini supposedly did for Italy (after all the trains ran on time, etc.), forgetting, however, the devastating and appalling methods fascists used to beat the opposition into total submission, or the racial laws of 1938, signed by 180 so-called scientists, known as the "Race Manifesto." That manifesto was articulated in ten points which are worthwhile recalling:

1.) Human races exist
2.) There exist great and unworthy races
3.) The concept of race is purely biological
4.) The population of Italy is largely Arian
5.) There was never a historical diluting of this race, which has remained substantially fixed for the last 1000 years
6.) By now there exists a pure Italian race
7.) It's time for Italians to declare themselves racists
8.) There is a net difference between Mediterranean Europe on one side and Africa and the Near East on the other
9.) Jews do not pertain to the Arian race
10.) The purely European psychological and physiological characteristics of Italians must never be altered

This is what I meant about why the ridiculous aspects fascism should not obscure its wickedness. Thus when I hear Wilders spew his hatred and provocations, even if I defend his every right to do so, the idea that this man has any political purchase is simply atrocious. That's because there has never been a good fascism, just as there has never been a good religious extremism. Both are to be resisted and condemned with equal vigor in the name of civility, liberty and tolerance.

 

[movingtarget]

You have to consider, however, that Wilders is a species of fascist. Fascism was born of nationalism, colonialism and racism. It's ridiculous aspects should not obscure its wickedness. When considering a persona like Wilders, this is a detail that should not be forgotten.

I don't defend in any way religious fanaticism, especially when it is merely a "justification" to behave criminally in the name of someone's god and under the umbrella of self-righteousness; nor do I advocate placing limits on a right to free speech - to the contrary.

Yet the right to free speech comes with its abuses, however sanctioned by the law (upon which I'm totally in agreement), in the form of gratuitous provocations and instigating hate. Now given Europe's criminal background with fascism, means that one such as Wilders must only be condemned without reservation as a circumscribed product of reactionary hostility, and a perverse nationalism that simply belongs to a dark era that’s best left behind. Of course a right to free speech can be conversely deployed, that is as an anecdote to the venom of someone elses.

Imagine if the likes of Wilders were to take power and be capable of making his ideology "official," legalized and put into practice? This brings to mind the "good things" Mussolini supposedly did for Italy (after all the trains ran on time, etc.), forgetting, however, the devastating and appalling methods fascists used to beat the opposition into total submission, or the racial laws of 1938, signed by 180 so-called scientists, known as the "Race Manifesto." That manifesto was articulated in ten points which are worthwhile recalling:

1.) Human races exist
2.) There exist great and unworthy races
3.) The concept of race is purely biological
4.) The population of Italy is largely Arian
5.) There was never a historical diluting of this race, which has remained substantially fixed for the last 1000 years
6.) By now there exists a pure Italian race
7.) It's time for Italians to declare themselves racists
8.) There is a net difference between Mediterranean Europe on one side and Africa and the Near East on the other
9.) Jews do not pertain to the Arian race
10.) The purely European psychological and physiological characteristics of Italians must never be altered

This is what I meant about why the ridiculous aspects fascism should not obscure its wickedness. Thus when I hear Wilders spew his hatred and provocations, even if I defend his every right to do so, the idea that this man has any political purchase is simply atrocious. That's because there has never been a good fascism, just as there has never been a good religious extremism. Both are to be resisted and condemned with equal vigor in the name of civility, liberty and tolerance.

One Million Dutch people seem to think otherwise. At least he addresses issues that politicians are too frightened to touch.

 

[auscyclefan94]

You have to consider, however, that Wilders is a species of fascist. Fascism was born of nationalism, colonialism and racism. It's ridiculous aspects should not obscure its wickedness. When considering a persona like Wilders, this is a detail that should not be forgotten.

I don't defend in any way religious fanaticism, especially when it is merely a "justification" to behave criminally in the name of someone's god and under the umbrella of self-righteousness; nor do I advocate placing limits on a right to free speech - to the contrary.

Yet the right to free speech comes with its abuses, however sanctioned by the law (upon which I'm totally in agreement), in the form of gratuitous provocations and instigating hate. Now given Europe's criminal background with fascism, means that one such as Wilders must only be condemned without reservation as a circumscribed product of reactionary hostility, and a perverse nationalism that simply belongs to a dark era that’s best left behind. Of course a right to free speech can be conversely deployed, that is as an anecdote to the venom of someone elses.
.

Imagine if the likes of Wilders were to take power and be capable of making his ideology "official," legalized and put into practice? This brings to mind the "good things" Mussolini supposedly did for Italy (after all the trains ran on time, etc.), forgetting, however, the devastating and appalling methods fascists used to beat the opposition into total submission, or the racial laws of 1938, signed by 180 so-called scientists, known as the "Race Manifesto." [snip]

The problem with trying to eliminate the hate that comes from Wilders is that nearly every law that tries to eliminate such abuse often contravenes the true cases of freedom of expression and will always go too far. While it is not pleasant to be racially vilified, I don't think a better outcome is to totally restrict free speech. Subjectively, you are going to believe that Wilders should be condemned. I agree. What I don't think we should be doing is sanctioning a opinion or view under the law. Doesn't that go against all democratic principles? Freedom of expression is suppose to be unpopular and offensive, but I don't think having laws which only allow free opinion for 'moderate opinions' is any better.

It is important to remember that in the past two dutch elections, Wilders achieved 10 and 15 precent of the vote and is the third biggest party

 

[rhubroma]

One Million Dutch people seem to think otherwise. At least he addresses issues that politicians are too frightened to touch.

Millions agreed with Hitler and Mussolini since other politicians were too frightened to touch certain issues.

 

[rhubroma]

The problem with trying to eliminate the hate that comes from Wilders is that nearly every law that tries to eliminate such abuse often contravenes the true cases of freedom of expression and will always go too far. While it is not pleasant to be racially vilified, I don't think a better outcome is to totally restrict free speech. Subjectively, you are going to believe that Wilders should be condemned. I agree. What I don't think we should be doing is sanctioning a opinion or view under the law. Doesn't that go against all democratic principles? Freedom of expression is suppose to be unpopular and offensive, but I don't think having laws which only allow free opinion for 'moderate opinions' is any better.

It is important to remember that in the past two dutch elections, Wilders achieved 10 and 15 precent of the vote and is the third biggest party

Agreed, which was inferred.

PS: This frase, I think, was key: free speech can be conversely deployed, that is as an anecdote to someone else's venom.

 

[Merckx index]

What I don't think we should be doing is sanctioning a opinion or view under the law. Doesn't that go against all democratic principles?

Aren’t you advocating that freedom of expression should be sanctioned by the law? That is an opinion that quite obviously a lot of people disagree with. Many Muslims, for example. They would argue that your opinion that freedom of speech is sacrosanct should not be given preference over their opinion that certain types of speech should not be allowed. How do you deal with that kind of conflict? There was a guy in Florida (U.S.) who publicly burned Korans, resulting in worse relations between Muslims and America. Should he be allowed to do this?

This raises another problem: classically freedom of speech has been completely separated from freedom of action. But in the 21st century we know enough about human behavior to say quite positively that there is not a sharp line between the two—that certain kinds of speech greatly increase the probability of certain kinds of behavior. The classic example of this, recognized by law, is that one doesn’t have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded room. But this is purely a matter of probability. The probability that a stampede will result is very high, but not 100%. So the real question is, what probability do we find acceptable, and how do we balance this with the probable outcome? The probability that certain kinds of hate speech will result in killings is not 100%, but it is quite high, and the result is considerably more serious than the results of a stampede.

What are you going to say if studies suggest that the net effect of hate speech (probability of consequences x seriousness of consequences) is equal to or even greater than the net effect of yelling fire? What if, hypothetically, one could predict with a very high degree of certainty that certain kinds of speech led to killings? Would you still support them?

The root of this problem is an outmoded view of human beings having free will, in the sense of being outside of the laws of cause and effect. The assumption, which is false, that people can choose to be unaffected by speech. As soon as one recognizes that reality is not that simple, the line between speech and action breaks down. Speech is a form of action that has certain consequences.

In case anyone thinks the above is purely theoretical or "philosophical", I note that in America, at least, the media are allowed to define certain opinions "mainstream", which means they are given much more attention and publicity than opinions which are considered outside the mainstream. For example, Presidential candidates with views outside the mainstream are not invited to debates. This is a tacit admission that all opinions in the marketplace are not equal, that some have more value than others. The question is, how do we assess their value? Is it just by their popularity? But popularity changes, and is itself affected by how much value an opinion is perceived to have.

 

[rhubroma]

Aren’t you advocating that freedom of expression should be sanctioned by the law? That is an opinion that quite obviously a lot of people disagree with. Many Muslims, for example. They would argue that your opinion that freedom of speech is sacrosanct should not be given preference over their opinion that certain types of speech should not be allowed. How do you deal with that kind of conflict? There was a guy in Florida (U.S.) who publicly burned Korans, resulting in worse relations between Muslims and America. Should he be allowed to do this?

This raises another problem: classically freedom of speech has been completely separated from freedom of action. But in the 21st century we know enough about human behavior to say quite positively that there is not a sharp line between the two—that certain kinds of speech greatly increase the probability of certain kinds of behavior. The classic example of this, recognized by law, is that one doesn’t have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded room. But this is purely a matter of probability. The probability that a stampede will result is very high, but not 100%. So the real question is, what probability do we find acceptable, and how do we balance this with the probable outcome? The probability that certain kinds of hate speech will result in killings is not 100%, but it is quite high, and the result is considerably more serious than the results of a stampede.

What are you going to say if studies suggest that the net effect of hate speech (probability of consequences x seriousness of consequences) is equal to or even greater than the net effect of yelling fire? What if, hypothetically, one could predict with a very high degree of certainty that certain kinds of speech led to killings? Would you still support them?

The root of this problem is an outmoded view of human beings having free will, in the sense of being outside of the laws of cause and effect. The assumption, which is false, that people can choose to be unaffected by speech. As soon as one recognizes that reality is not that simple, the line between speech and action breaks down. Speech is a form of action that has certain consequences.

In case anyone thinks the above is purely theoretical or "philosophical", I note that in America, at least, the media are allowed to define certain opinions "mainstream", which means they are given much more attention and publicity than opinions which are considered outside the mainstream. For example, Presidential candidates with views outside the mainstream are not invited to debates. This is a tacit admission that all opinions in the marketplace are not equal, that some have more value than others. The question is, how do we assess their value? Is it just by their popularity? But popularity changes, and is itself affected by how much value an opinion is perceived to have.

The issue, of course, is that you can't legislate common sense, or decency. Whereas placing limitations on the right to free speech, effectively cancels that right, or at least irrevocably distorts it. While I may find the gesture of burning the Koran by some hooky fanatic living a willfully circumscribed life in Florida ridiculous and idiotic, not to mentioning inappropriate, I'm willing to defend his right to do so; just as I'm willing to defend any satirical publications dealing with one's creed and faith - which, by the way, I don't find in any way appalling (in fact what's appalling in such cases is that religious zealots emit death sentences in response).

The only thing to do in a democratic society is to educate civic and social bon mores, common sense, respect, tolerance. Naturally this is a huge and ultimately universally unrealizable task, however, if its not the job of democratic society, then what is?

Unfortunately one of the effects of neoliberalism and “me”-capitalism (to use Ulrich Beck's thesis), has been to inculcate the idea that I am sovereign to the extreme, that my divinely sanctioned free will does not come with any responsibility toward others, let alone respect for their sentiments. In the world of instant gratification and communications, this has become an eroding factor in what a civic education was predicated upon.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Aren’t you advocating that freedom of expression should be sanctioned by the law? That is an opinion that quite obviously a lot of people disagree with. Many Muslims, for example. They would argue that your opinion that freedom of speech is sacrosanct should not be given preference over their opinion that certain types of speech should not be allowed. How do you deal with that kind of conflict? There was a guy in Florida (U.S.) who publicly burned Korans, resulting in worse relations between Muslims and America. Should he be allowed to do this?

I am saying that there should be the minimal to no free speech laws. I don't think people should be punished to say what they think and/or believe, no matter how abhorrent their comment was. I don't care if people agree with that opinion. I don't know how you concluded otherwise. As stupid as buring the Qur'an is, as long as he is not damaging public property, he can go ahead and do that.

This raises another problem: classically freedom of speech has been completely separated from freedom of action. But in the 21st century we know enough about human behavior to say quite positively that there is not a sharp line between the two—that certain kinds of speech greatly increase the probability of certain kinds of behavior. The classic example of this, recognized by law, is that one doesn’t have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded room. But this is purely a matter of probability. The probability that a stampede will result is very high, but not 100%. So the real question is, what probability do we find acceptable, and how do we balance this with the probable outcome? The probability that certain kinds of hate speech will result in killings is not 100%, but it is quite high, and the result is considerably more serious than the results of a stampede.

I largely agree, although I don't your example is about freedom of speech. It is more about public safety and those words can deeply affect someone. For example, someone calling you a nigger does not equate to endangering others and therefore is free speech because it is not life threatening for one or many people.

What are you going to say if studies suggest that the net effect of hate speech (probability of consequences x seriousness of consequences) is equal to or even greater than the net effect of yelling fire? What if, hypothetically, one could predict with a very high degree of certainty that certain kinds of speech led to killings? Would you still support them?

The action of killing caused the death, not the hate speech. You can't equate that to yelling fire in a compact room because hate speech does not directly impact one's safety. I believe those studies that supposedly support your contention are bogus and a load of bs.

The root of this problem is an outmoded view of human beings having free will, in the sense of being outside of the laws of cause and effect. The assumption, which is false, that people can choose to be unaffected by speech. As soon as one recognizes that reality is not that simple, the line between speech and action breaks down. Speech is a form of action that has certain consequences.

I disagree. I do think people can make choices and are able to react in different ways. They may find the words hurtful or nasty, but that does not justify retaliation. There is a difference to being affected by something and then choosing to do something in response.

In case anyone thinks the above is purely theoretical or "philosophical", I note that in America, at least, the media are allowed to define certain opinions "mainstream", which means they are given much more attention and publicity than opinions which are considered outside the mainstream. For example, Presidential candidates with views outside the mainstream are not invited to debates. This is a tacit admission that all opinions in the marketplace are not equal, that some have more value than others. The question is, how do we assess their value? Is it just by their popularity? But popularity changes, and is itself affected by how much value an opinion is perceived to have.

I don't see how this is about free speech. They only put the mainstream leaders on because that is what the large majority of the audience wants to see and that is more practical than having leaders from all parties on the panel.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Should I put some money on Berlusconi celebrating tonight with Bunga bunga party?

 

[the asian]

Should I put some money on Berlusconi celebrating tonight with Bunga bunga party?

Hope not. The Italians shuld be banished from the European union if that happens

The last polls had the Centre Left in front. Hope it stays that way.

 

[SafeBet]

Should I put some money on Berlusconi celebrating tonight with Bunga bunga party?

Considering voting operations end tomorrow, I would not


And I'd say there's little to no chance he'll be elected anyway. Centre-left is the clear favorite here. There might be a very volatile situation with no clear majority in the senate though. That would probably lead to alliances between centre-left and Monti, for the happiness of the EU.

This was a good opportunity to end Berlusconi's career as a politician. But if he's above 20% (which is appalling, but realistic) he just won't go away.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Senator Brandis: "He (Swan) had no brains then (@ University) and he has no brains now"

Classic!