Australian woman persecuted because of privately-expressed opinions
The opinions were neo-Nazi but there is no law against having such opinions in Australia. Nor should there be. "Die Gendanken sind frei" (thoughts are free) said the old anti-Nazi song and what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Even the ACLU has on occasions supported the right of Neo-Nazis to express their views.
"One of Australia's largest Defence Department-linked companies has suspended a contractor over her alleged links to an international neo-Nazi group. Nicole Hanley, a bid support manager for Thales - which has hundreds of millions of dollars in Department of Defence contracts - is alleged to have been involved as an administrator of the neo-Nazi web forum Blood & Honour.
The claims have been made by whistleblower site Wikileaks, which has published a hacked database containing private messages between the group's members.
According to the Wikileaks private message trail it is claimed that Hanley has published a detailed online diary of her travels to Europe last year, which included attending several neo-Nazi skinhead gatherings, visiting Adolf Hitler's birthplace, placing flowers on his parents' grave and collecting Nazi memorabilia. "Hearing/joining in with so many hundreds of people chanting Sieg Heil together is something that will stay with me forever," she allegedly wrote.
Source
33 comments:
I may not agree with her coice of holiday, nor her way of expressing her enjoyment of such a trip. But surely before she is condemned without a trial there are several thousand Islamic adherents here who have committed far worse utterances WITHIN this country who should already have scheduled court appearances for far worse political expressions of dissention and violence. NO? WHY NOT? They've have committed far worse crimes vocalising hate speech HERE in THIS country. JUSTICE reavow your name, as of lately it represents SHAME.
The government is under no obligation to associate itself with people of dubious moral character.
Moreover, there is a questionable security risk of letting neo-nazis work for the defense department.
Bob,
I too find these neo-nazi's a pathetic and disgusting lot but...
The real security threat should be the fact that a hacker can hack a web site and track back to a government employee.
Which meant he hacked employment records as well.
THAT could be a federal offence and should be prosecuted, not to mention the invasion of privacy issue here.
But the large point here is this:
HATE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH! Not just speech you like!
Deal with it libs!
"HATE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH! Not just speech you like!"
---What about freedom of association?
Government jobs have always had restrictions such as having good moral character.
Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
I was recently laid off from my job, how do I know my last company didn't monitor my online activity? How do I know they didn't fire me for the controversial stuff I wrote on this blog during office hours?
Even if Nicole Hanley did her activities at home, did she use a pseudonym? Did she protect her identity? "Private" messages aren't really private if you use your real name.
Moreover, does the government not have a right to fire people they consider undesirable? That's the rationale used for don't ask don't tell.
Wow a right wing website- glad I dicoveded this. Just as bad as the left wing ones. Actually in your favour they probably are worse- because there are more of them. Lefties don't hide their opinions as much either.
A balanced and clear perspective is best i find, I look forward to hors of ebtertainment here.
"Wow a right wing website- glad I dicoveded this. Just as bad as the left wing ones."
---I don't think so, most right-wingers support FREEDOM!
"A balanced and clear perspective is best i find,"
---So there are no absolutes? There's no good or evil, just shades of gray? I think some issues demand absolutes, like the second amendment, free speech, freedom of association.
Just like the Boy Scouts can choose their membership, the government should have the same rights when it comes to employees.
Just like the Boy Scouts can choose their membership, the government should have the same rights when it comes to employees.
The government is not a private club as the Boy Scouts are.
Essentially you are saying that the government can deny a job to someone who belongs to a legal group or a group of a certain political persuasion.
That's a ridiculous assertion.
"Essentially you are saying that the government can deny a job to someone who belongs to a legal group or a group of a certain political persuasion.
"That's a ridiculous assertion."
Really? Would you say that a government based on a constitutional republic model should be required to put someone who wants to destroy that constitution and replace it with a dictatorship? Should a government be required to keep an employee who has been identified as a spy for a foreign government or anti-government political group? How about someone who just thinks "information should be free," including state secrets? Or even someone who refuses to obey that government's laws and policies?
These are all examples of "political persuasions".
Ed raises some great points, neo-nazis are by default an anti-government group, just like the KKK. In fact, a police officer in Montana was fired after his membership to the KKK was discovered. It's well known that cops who belong to the KKK have tampered with evidence to protect their comrades.
These are all examples of "political persuasions".
Nice try, but no.
There are laws against sedition and if a person breaks that law, they should not be employed. Neither should a spy. If you break the rules and guidelines of your job, you should be fired. If you chose not to follow the laws of the country, you can be fired.
The distinction you are missing is that belonging to a certain group is not the same thing as breaking the law.
Just because a person has a different political viewpoint does not disqualify them for government employment. If that were the case, then Democrats could outlaw Republicans.
The action of hiring or termination should be made on the actions of the employee. Simply belonging to a legal association should not disqualify a person from holding a job in the government.
I'm with you Anon 4:59.
There is a big difference between membership of a lawful group and possessing ideological viewpoints and clearly criminal activities.
It is presently not a crime to hold an unpopular (even repugnant) viewpoint unless and until that transforms into actions that constitute commission of a crime.
If we allow government to fire people (actually, it sounds like she was a contractor to a government contractor so a bit different) for membership of a neo-Nazi group how long until we allow the same for Communists/Greens/Democrats/CDP/CAB/One Nation/etc?
"Simply belonging to a legal association should not disqualify a person from holding a job in the government."
---Didn't we use to fire people for belonging to the Communist Party?
---Didn't we use to fire people for belonging to the Communist Party?
Didn't we used to not let women vote?
So, being a member of a group dedicated to undermining the employing government—which means that the person can be expected to act on the beliefs of that group—is not enough to consider them to be detrimental to that government, and thus unemployable?
Just… wow.
Should Air America, Move On, or ACORN be required to hire Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter?
So, being a member of a group dedicated to undermining the employing government—which means that the person can be expected to act on the beliefs of that group—is not enough to consider them to be detrimental to that government, and thus unemployable?
You can read minds now? You know what a person is going to do?
Just… wow.
Absolutely. Just wow that you think political differences should disqualify someone for working for the government.
Should Air America, Move On, or ACORN be required to hire Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter?
Is Air America, Move On, or ACORN the government?
---There's no harm in allowing women their right to vote. I cannot say the same about communists,
How enlightening of you to "allow" women their rights, but want to deny others their rights.
"How enlightening of you to "allow" women their rights, but want to deny others their rights."
---Duh! That's how society works! You're only as free as others allow you. Why do you think there are speed limits, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, DUI's, mandatory sentences for drug "crimes," and a host of other regulations?
But let me put it another way, say a teacher was a member of a pro-pedophile organization, say a hacker finds his name and informs the propper authorities. Now, are you going to wait for that pervert to molest someone? Or do you demand such pervert be fired immediately?
People have lost jobs for MUCH LESS than being a neo-nazi. I don't see why Nicole Hanley should be given more rights than the average person.
---Duh! That's how society works!
No, society does not work that way.
Why do you think there are speed limits, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, DUI's, mandatory sentences for drug "crimes," and a host of other regulations?
And of these, which is a "right?"
But let me put it another way, say a teacher was a member of a pro-pedophile organization, say a hacker finds his name and informs the propper authorities.
Pedophilia is against the law. Holding a certain political view is not. That is the distinction you are missing. The first amendment was written to protect political speech (amongst others.) It was written to protect those with unpopular views from repercussions and persecution from the government. Yet for some unknown reason, you want the first amendment to be thrown out because you don't like a certain person's political views.
In short, you are either against the first amendment, or you believe in "free speech for me but not for thee."
People have lost jobs for MUCH LESS than being a neo-nazi. I don't see why Nicole Hanley should be given more rights than the average person.
Once again, you don't see anything wrong with it because you don't believe in freedom of speech and freedom of association. In fact, from your comments, you don't believe in the equal protection claus or "innocent 'till proven guilty." It appears that in your mind that associating or being a part of a political group allows the government to label you a criminal and fire you.
And of these, which is a "right?"
---My point is that there are no absolutes in a free society.
"Pedophilia is against the law. Holding a certain political view is not. That is the distinction you are missing."
---Belonging to a group that supports pedophilia is not against the law. Reading about bestiality, necrophilia, satanism, how to make bombs and the worst vile things you can imagine is not against the law. HOWEVER, if I own a funeral home and find out my embalmer loves visiting websites dedicated to necrophilia, I'm firing his ass before he does actual damage.
"Yet for some unknown reason, you want the first amendment to be thrown out because you don't like a certain person's political views."
---Nicole isn't going to jail for her free speech, she's not being fined, and unlike the Salem Witch Trials, she won't be tortured. But she will be denied employment because her values don't fit in with the government's values.
"Once again, you don't see anything wrong with it because you don't believe in freedom of speech and freedom of association."
---Freedom of association is not a one way street. The Boy Scouts won their right to ban gays and atheists from joining, I don't agree with what the BSA is doing but I support their freedom of association. The same with Don't Ask Don't Tell, I don't agree with the policy but I support the rights of the arm forces to create their own moral standards and enforce them, however unfair.
"It appears that in your mind that associating or being a part of a political group allows the government to label you a criminal and fire you."
---It's about common sense! If a teacher went to a pro-marihuana rally and her picture gets published online or in a newspaper, and her students recognize her, she will lose her job because her association with that group has compromised the values of the school.
There are many jobs that demand "good moral character," are you saying such demands violate the first amendment?
---My point is that there are no absolutes in a free society.
No one ever said there was. However, protection of political viewpoints are as close to an absolute as you can get in the Constitution.
---Belonging to a group that supports pedophilia is not against the law.
So you support firing someone for something that is not against the law?
HOWEVER, if I own a funeral home and find out my embalmer loves visiting websites dedicated to necrophilia, I'm firing his ass before he does actual damage.
You are free to do so as you are would be a private entity. The conduct of the government is different and held to a different standard.
But she will be denied employment because her values don't fit in with the government's values.
Exactly. It is censorship by the government of what you now agree is free speech.
---Freedom of association is not a one way street.
Actually it is, but I know you don't agree to that.
The Boy Scouts won their right to ban gays and atheists from joining, I don't agree with what the BSA is doing but I support their freedom of association.
And you do realize that the BSA is not the government, correct?
---It's about common sense!
I agree. The Constitution is based on common sense. So why are you against it?
If a teacher went to a pro-marihuana rally and her picture gets published online or in a newspaper, and her students recognize her, she will lose her job because her association with that group has compromised the values of the school.
I would beg to differ on that. The fact that a teacher attends a pro marijuana rally is different than her being photographed smoking an illegal drug.
Your position continually hinges on what the person MAY do.
It amazes me that besides limiting free speech, limiting the right of association, trashing the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and destroying the equal protection clause of the Constitution, you are now advocating limiting an individual's right to approach the government to change laws and seek redress.
There are many jobs that demand "good moral character," are you saying such demands violate the first amendment?
First, the first amendment applies to the conduct of the government, not private industry.
Secondly, are you really trying to say that a political view that is different from yours or "the government" demonstrates a person with "immoral character?"
That is quite a leap. I guess in your mind that means that Washington, Adams, Hancock, Jefferson, Madison et al were of dubious moral character since their views contradicted that of the government at the time.
The Founding Fathers are now "moral degenerates" using your logic.
"However, protection of political viewpoints are as close to an absolute as you can get in the Constitution."
---Which is why we don't usually put people in jail for their views. However, the bill of rights does not say that you have the right to have a job and earn a salary.
"So you support firing someone for something that is not against the law?"
---I've been fired for spelling mistakes in the past, that wasn't against the law.
"You are free to do so as you are would be a private entity. The conduct of the government is different and held to a different standard."
---Wouldn't you say it's held to a higher standard? O'reilly had a story of San Francisco cops getting in trouble for videotaping themselves doing a sketch in blackface at a party.
"Exactly. It is censorship by the government of what you now agree is free speech."
---Nicole wasn't censored, she was simply fired. She can continue to be a neo-nazi without the taxpayers supporting her lifestyle.
"And you do realize that the BSA is not the government, correct?"
---I do, but you ignore the military argument. The military does censor people on morals, adultery for example is not tolerated even if it happens outside the base with a member not in the military. Why should neo-nazis have more rights than swingers?
"I would beg to differ on that. The fact that a teacher attends a pro marijuana rally is different than her being photographed smoking an illegal drug."
---She will be seen as a bad role model and a supporter of bad behavior. America doesn't have San Francisco values, you know.
"you are now advocating limiting an individual's right to approach the government to change laws and seek redress."
---I have done no such thing, if Nicole wants to sue the hacker and the government, she's free to do that.
"Secondly, are you really trying to say that a political view that is different from yours or "the government" demonstrates a person with "immoral character?""
---Yes, politics can be used to judge character. Why is that shocking?
Look at it this way, doing porn movies may be legal, and don't tell me that's not free speech because for some people it is the ultimate form of self-expression and yet the government can fire you if they find out you did such films.
I'm not a moralist, but if I have to follow morals in the private section, I don't see why public workers should get a break.
However, the bill of rights does not say that you have the right to have a job and earn a salary.
But the Bill of Rights says the government cannot persecute you for held views. No matter how you try and couch it, that is what this comes down to. Courts have held that being fired, or losing a job IS censorship.
---I've been fired for spelling mistakes in the past, that wasn't against the law.
Geez, are you really that obteuse? PERFORMANCE is different than political speech or politically held views.
---Wouldn't you say it's held to a higher standard?
I said what I meant to say. It is a DIFFERENT standard.
---Nicole wasn't censored, she was simply fired. She can continue to be a neo-nazi without the taxpayers supporting her lifestyle.
Firing someone over politcally held positions IS censorship. Courts have long held that it is.
---I do, but you ignore the military argument. The military does censor people on morals, adultery for example is not tolerated even if it happens outside the base with a member not in the military. Why should neo-nazis have more rights than swingers?
I dodn't ignore the military because your point is a rehashing of something that has already been dismissed. There is a difference between actions and politically held views and speech. Get that through your head.
---She will be seen as a bad role model and a supporter of bad behavior. America doesn't have San Francisco values, you know.
And thankfully Amaerica doesn;t have the values where Constitutionally protected rights are trashed because YOU don't like what someone believes in.
You have the right to disagree with her position on smoking marijuana. That is the beauty f free speech. What you do not have the right to do is to censor her through her lose of a job.
---I have done no such thing, if Nicole wants to sue the hacker and the government, she's free to do that.
You don't even understand your own arguements. If the teacher is fired for leagally protesting and seeking redress from the government, that is Constitutionally illegal. You agree with the idea that the teacher should be fired and therefore you agree with the teacher being denied another Constitutionally protected right.
---Yes, politics can be used to judge character. Why is that shocking?
It is that this point that you have jumped the shark. Anyone who disagrees with you must have bad morals or something.
Look at it this way, doing porn movies may be legal, and don't tell me that's not free speech because for some people it is the ultimate form of self-expression and yet the government can fire you if they find out you did such films.
You still don't see the difference between an action and thought do you?
Oh well.
This is getting tiresome. It is clear that you are against the freedoms upon which this country is founded.
I'm not a moralist, but if I have to follow morals in the private section, I don't see why public workers should get a break.
There ya go. You have simply statted that you don't understand the difference between governmental conduct and conduct by private citizens. Until you understand that distinction, you are simply wailing against the wind.
"I don't ignore the military because your point is a rehashing of something that has already been dismissed. There is a difference between actions and politically held views and speech. Get that through your head."
---Telling people you're gay is political speech!
"That is the beauty f free speech. What you do not have the right to do is to censor her through her lose of a job."
---Whatever, I live in the real world and in the real world people are censored for all kinds of reasons, not just being a neo-nazi.
'You agree with the idea that the teacher should be fired and therefore you agree with the teacher being denied another Constitutionally protected right."
---Having a job is not a right! This country has a long tradition of discrimination, southern hotels used to have signs that said "no jews, no blacks, no dogs." That's freedom of association!
"You still don't see the difference between an action and thought do you?"
---Nicole had action, joining that neo-nazi group, attending meetings, that sounds like action to me.
If a senator today attended neo-nazi events and posted on neo-nazi websites, he would face a vote of censure. Morality always plays a part, what's tolerated in California is not necessarily tolerated in Idaho, Nicole should have known that her lifestyle choice was going to get her in trouble, so instead of working for the neonaziphobes, she should have gotten a job somewhere else.
Common sense!
---Telling people you're gay is political speech!
No it isn't. Secondly, you are obviously unaware that the courts have held that conduct in the military is different than that of the the general population.
---Whatever, I live in the real world and in the real world people are censored for all kinds of reasons, not just being a neo-nazi.
I'll say it again... a private enterprise can terminate you for certain political speech. The government cannot. That is the real world.
---Having a job is not a right!
No one said it was. Persecuting or stopping someone from holding a postition in the government based on protected political speech is against the Constitution.
This country has a long tradition of discrimination, southern hotels used to have signs that said "no jews, no blacks, no dogs." That's freedom of association!
Geez, this is getting ridiculous. You fail to understand that the Constitution now prohibits such discrimination in governmental agencies and interests. Commerce is a specified interest in the Constitution so that is where your arguement fails.
---Nicole had action, joining that neo-nazi group, attending meetings, that sounds like action to me.
Yet attending those meetings is protected free speech. That is what you are missing. No matter how much you argue against it, you are simply wrong.
If a senator today attended neo-nazi events and posted on neo-nazi websites, he would face a vote of censure.
Another worthless hypothetical from you.
Morality always plays a part, what's tolerated in California is not necessarily tolerated in Idaho, Nicole should have known that her lifestyle choice was going to get her in trouble, so instead of working for the neonaziphobes, she should have gotten a job somewhere else.
As usual, you want to promote censureship by the government. Good for you. So when they tell you that you can't work for the government because you hold ideals that are against the foundation of this country, don't come whining to anyone.
Common sense!
Try it sometime. You might like it.
"Secondly, you are obviously unaware that the courts have held that conduct in the military is different than that of the the general population."
---The military is part of the government, the civil service side of the government demands different conduct from their employees.
"Persecuting or stopping someone from holding a postition in the government based on protected political speech is against the Constitution."
---What about the red scare? What about all the private communists that lost their jobs? Was the government wrong then?
"As usual, you want to promote censureship by the government."
---Just answer me this, should a member of Al-Quaeda be allowed to work for the US government?
---The military is part of the government, the civil service side of the government demands different conduct from their employees.
You just don't get it do you? You raise a hypothetical and when it gets answered, you want to change it.
---What about the red scare? What about all the private communists that lost their jobs? Was the government wrong then?
Yes, the government was wrong. It was wrong on two fronts: 1) by focusing on the "red menance," the government missed actual communist spies in the government. Once again, being a communist is not against the law. Being a spy is.
2) The government had no business holding the hearings they did where people's Constitutional rights were violated over and over.
If the government was right back then, then how many communists are in jail today for attending a communist rally?
Not only that, we have had avowed Communists run for the office of President.
Clearly, simply advocating or engaging in political speech is not against the law and is not punishable by the government.
---Just answer me this, should a member of Al-Quaeda be allowed to work for the US government?
You really need to follow court cases before you ask stupid questions like this. This has been answered in a court of law. The answer is exactly what I have been saying. A person may be supportative in political speech of supporting a group that is unpopular. Supporting that group by illegal activities is not acceptable.
You have sidestepped the issue of whether the founding fathers were immoral as they held rallies, marches, and published pamphlets that were contrary to the aims of the government.
That is the problem here. You want speech censored on the basis of content - something that you don't like.
That is really what this is about. You believe that a person's views must conform to some random standard that you set forth.
That is not free speech.
It is a pity that you are against one of the foundations of this country.
Canada may be more of your liking since they seem to want to censor any opion that they disagree with.
Buy some snow gear and head north.
"You have sidestepped the issue of whether the founding fathers were immoral as they held rallies, marches, and published pamphlets that were contrary to the aims of the government."
---You have sidestep the issue that Abraham Lincoln put people in prison for political speech against the civil war.
"That is really what this is about. You believe that a person's views must conform to some random standard that you set forth.
That is not free speech."
---Wrong, I support free speech, you support special protections for government workers. You draw a distinction between the private sector and the public sector, I don't see why. I'm a taxpayer, everyone from a cop to the president is supported by my salary, that makes me their employer and that gives me the right to pressure the government to fire neo-nazis. That is free speech!
You need to learn more about neo-nazis, and not just from their websites but from actual accounts by former neo-nazis. In Germany they have infiltrated every branch of government, including the police who supports their violent activities against asylum centers.
If the neo-nazis want you, you can't even trust the cops because they will let them know where you're hiding.
You're like the liberals that oppose the patriot act, want to close down Guantanamo and oppose waterboarding. George W. Bush was a hero because he took the necessary measures to prevent another 9/11, even if such measures violated the constitution.
You'd rather have neo-nazis in power getting access to all kinds of data they can use in future operations.
I'd rather discriminate. I'd rather say "yes neo-nazi, you can have your free speech, your second amendment, but your security clearance has been denied."
---You have sidestep the issue that Abraham Lincoln put people in prison for political speech against the civil war.
It is unseemly to lie about people Bob. This is the first time that you have brought up Lincoln in this discussion. I haven't sidestepped this at all becuase you never brought it up.
(But I noticed that you have still not answered whether the Founding Fathers were morally corrupt under your definition that anyone who speaks out against the government is morally bankrupt.)
To answer your point concerning Lincoln, the Supreme Court later held that Lincoln's actions in detaining those who spoke out against the war was un-Constitutional. In other words, Lincoln's actions were illegal. Somehow I doubt that is going to bother you as you have yet to demonstrate any regard or concern for the rights of people guaranteed by the Constitution.
---Wrong, I support free speech,
All evidence to the contrary.
you support special protections for government workers. You draw a distinction between the private sector and the public sector, I don't see why.
I don't draw the distinction, the Constitution does. Take a look at the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Constitution says that the GOVERNMENT cannot restrict free speech. It makes no mention of private individuals restricting speech on private property.
Got it now, Bob? You keep wanting to tie together that which is not under the Constitution. To continually try to do so either shows a complete ignorance of the Constitution or a complete willingness to disregard its contents.
I'm a taxpayer, everyone from a cop to the president is supported by my salary, that makes me their employer and that gives me the right to pressure the government to fire neo-nazis. That is free speech!
It is amazing that in one breath you say "I support free speech" and then in the next you want the government to censure and stiffle that very free speech.
(And no, Bob, you aren't their "employer" any more than when you buy a Big Mac you can fire the kid behind the counter.)
You're like the liberals that oppose the patriot act, want to close down Guantanamo and oppose waterboarding.
Where you draw that conclusion from, I have no idea. Then again, your accusations have been flying all over the place from the beginning of this. It is generally liberals and the left who want to censor speech with which they disagree. Conservatives understand that free speech is just that - free speech.
George W. Bush was a hero because he took the necessary measures to prevent another 9/11, even if such measures violated the constitution.
I gotta hand it to you. Every time I think that you can't say anything more stupid and ridiculous, you manage to top yourself.
The Constitution is the basis of this country. For you to gibly say that someone who violates the Constitution is a "hero" is moronic.
That is not to say that I believe that Bush violated the Constitution. In my opinion, he did not. The fact of the matter is that you would be happy if he did as long as the ends were in line with your beliefs. That's scary on some level. I take a more measured response in believing that we do not have to violate our most precious beliefs and core principles to get the job done.
I agree with John Adams who wrote, "the very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men."
You disagree with that.
Of course, as Adams was outspoken against the government at the time, he must have been morally corrupt in your eyes.
"It is unseemly to lie about people Bob. This is the first time that you have brought up Lincoln in this discussion. I haven't sidestepped this at all becuase you never brought it up."
---Ok, you got me there. I thought I had written that argument before but I didn't.
"(But I noticed that you have still not answered whether the Founding Fathers were morally corrupt under your definition that anyone who speaks out against the government is morally bankrupt.)"
---The founding fathers where fighting a government that was morally corrupt. The neo-nazis aren't. You can debate that if you want.
"The Constitution says that the GOVERNMENT cannot restrict free speech. It makes no mention of private individuals restricting speech on private property."
---It's all about judicial interpretation, if a private company fires you for wearing a cross, you can sue and you're very likely to win because it violates free speech.
"It is amazing that in one breath you say "I support free speech" and then in the next you want the government to censure and stiffle that very free speech."
---Because there's no censure and stifling going on. Firing people from their jobs is not a form of censorship. Censorship is putting people in jail, fining them, executing them. Censorship is what they did to the Marquis de Sade in France.
(And no, Bob, you aren't their "employer" any more than when you buy a Big Mac you can fire the kid behind the counter.)
---It's a matter of principles, in America we refer to our leaders as "public servants." They are here to serve us, not the other way around. Without our taxes, they are nothing. As for the kid behind the counter, if I complain to the manager I can get that kid fired, everyone knows the customer is king.
"It is generally liberals and the left who want to censor speech with which they disagree. Conservatives understand that free speech is just that - free speech."
---Conservatives don't generally see porn and burning the US flag as free speech. Like the neo-nazis, it's debatable.
"The Constitution is the basis of this country. For you to gibly say that someone who violates the Constitution is a "hero" is moronic."
---If we didn't torture terrorists, if we gave them habeas corpus, if we didn't wiretap conversations, we would have a hundred 9/11's. You could consider what Bush did a sort of constitutional martial law. I defend Bush because he kept us safe above the theorists that would put us in danger.
"That is not to say that I believe that Bush violated the Constitution. In my opinion, he did not."
---Even when he kept people in Guantanamo without a trial? When he practiced rendition? When he kidnapped arabs (some of them innocent) from their homes on the suspicion that they where terrorists? I don't condemn Bush for it, I know that's the price of preventing terrorism, but I'm not going to whitewash the truth either.
You said that a communist and a spy are two different things, that's now how people used to see it. Communists were never loyal to America, they where loyal to the soviet union and cubans. Eugene McCarthy and Roy Cohn did capture plenty of real communists, Ann Coulter would not be giving them credit if they didn't.
Neo-nazis aren't that different.
---The founding fathers where fighting a government that was morally corrupt. The neo-nazis aren't. You can debate that if you want.
A corrupt government? Please learn your history before making such a statement.
---It's all about judicial interpretation, if a private company fires you for wearing a cross, you can sue and you're very likely to win because it violates free speech.
Once again, you are ignorant of the subject matter. You cannot be fired from a private job for wearing a cross because there are anti-religious discrimination laws in place. It is not about free speech or freedom of expression. That only enters into to conversation when the government is trying to fire you.
---Because there's no censure and stifling going on. Firing people from their jobs is not a form of censorship.
You're kidding, right? Of course it is a form of censurship. Even so, the courts have held that persecuting someone for their political beliefs is unConstitutional. So you are arguing that the firing is justified even though the Constitution and the courts have said it is not.
Quite simply, you are wrong.
Censorship is putting people in jail, fining them, executing them. Censorship is what they did to the Marquis de Sade in France.
Wrong again. This is getting tiresome. The Supreme Court has held that actions that have a "chilling effect" on speech are contrary to the First Amendment. Only a fool would argue that the threatened or actual loss of a job would not have a chilling effect on free speech.
---It's a matter of principles,
No Bob, it is a matter of law.
As for the kid behind the counter, if I complain to the manager I can get that kid fired, everyone knows the customer is king.
You still can't fire the kid yourself and therefore you aren't his boss. So you are wrong again.
---Conservatives don't generally see porn and burning the US flag as free speech. Like the neo-nazis, it's debatable.
You are wrong here too. Conservatives recognize that porn is in the eye of the beholder and as such cannot be restricted across the board and across the country. Secondly, flag burning has been held by a conservative court to be protected political speech.
---If we didn't torture terrorists, if we gave them habeas corpus, if we didn't wiretap conversations, we would have a hundred 9/11's. You could consider what Bush did a sort of constitutional martial law. I defend Bush because he kept us safe above the theorists that would put us in danger.
Geez you really are ill informed, aren't you? Waterboarding was not codified as "torture" until recently and only then by a presidential declaration. Therefore Bush's actions were not against the Constitution. The wiretaps were not made where both parties were in this country. There are several cases where communications such as letters and telegrams were intercepted by the government and the Supreme Court held that there was no need for a warrant if the communication had a party outside of the country. Once again, Bush did not violate the Constitution.
You could consider what Bush did a sort of constitutional martial law.
No one within their right mind could consider it that. Sorry.
---Even when he kept people in Guantanamo without a trial? When he practiced rendition? When he kidnapped arabs (some of them innocent) from their homes on the suspicion that they where terrorists?
The argument at the time for Gitmo was that the people there were not US citizens and therefore not covered by the Constitution. The Supreme Court later ruled that they were. Once that ruling came down, Bush reversed course. So once again, Bush's actions were within the Constitution. As for "rendition," please show me in the Constitution where "rendition" and the prohibition on "rendition" is found. I'll await your answer.
I don't condemn Bush for it, I know that's the price of preventing terrorism, but I'm not going to whitewash the truth either.
There are two premises here. The first is that if Bush acted within the Constitution, he is fine. The second one is where you and I disagree. If Bush acted outside of the Constitution, you believe that the ends justify the means. I believe that the Constitution is the guiding light of the land and must be obeyed. You want to pick and choose what rights you feel should be violated to serve what you feel is some nebulous greater cause.
Luckily for the rest of us, your image and vision for America is not what reality is.
You said that a communist and a spy are two different things, that's now how people used to see it.
I am presuming that you meant "not how people used to see it" rather than "now how people used to see it." Either way, it doesn't matter how they "used to see it." What matters is the law. A Communist is not necessairly a spy. Once again you want to disregard "innocent until proven guilty" and the rule of law.
Communists were never loyal to America, they where loyal to the soviet union and cubans.
Bull. You can't make that statement for everyone. It is another idiotic statement from you that belies all reason and truth.
Eugene McCarthy and Roy Cohn did capture plenty of real communists, Ann Coulter would not be giving them credit if they didn't.
And were any of these people prosecuted and convicted of the so called crime of being a Communist? You need to re-read Coulter's book again. Her assertion is that there were Communists in the government AND that some were spies. Coulter takes issue with Communists on ethical grounds, but never says that just because one is a Communist that they should be thrown in jail. That is where you and she differ.
So let's review.....
You hold that:
1) the government and private citizens are the same even though the Constitution clearly says they are not.
2) belonging to or supporting a political point of view may be criminal.
3) violating the Constitution is acceptable as long as the ends are okay in your eyes.
4) those who speak out against the government or disagree with the government are morally corrupt.
I think that is where we are.
Good luck with those beliefs, Bob.
Alright anonymous, you win.
I still don't like the idea that it's unconstitutional for the government to fire neo-nazis and communists, but you have convinced me that my arguments are wrong.
Although that doesn't mean I trust Nicole, free speech aside, the government needs to keep a close eye on her.
Although that doesn't mean I trust Nicole, free speech aside, the government needs to keep a close eye on her.
One last disagreement.... I think that if anyone handles classified material or even is involved in the public trust, the government needs to keep an eye on them no matter what their stated beliefs are.
Most spies do not advertise that they are spies. Most people that intend to do harm to the state do not advertise it.
The fact of the matter is that the people need to be ever vilagent when it comes to the government.
"I think that if anyone handles classified material or even is involved in the public trust, the government needs to keep an eye on them no matter what their stated beliefs are."
---I agree with that as well.
"The fact of the matter is that the people need to be ever vilagent when it comes to the government."
---Also agree, that's why I listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch The O'reilly Factor, so I can get the truth about what's going on.
Post a Comment