Conference tallis::celt

    I find this case interesting as it shows that there are very different
    understandings of what free speech is. For my part I hope this nutter
    is found guilty.
    
    Kevin

Attempting to slander your fellow employees again, Mark?  Nothing changes, 
does it.

Chris.

    Under the American Constitution, am I correct in surmising that
    there are limitations to Freedom of Speech?
    
    For example, would I have the right to stand up in a cinema and 
    cause panic by shouting "Fire!"?
    
    John

    .2
    
    >neo-Nazi friend.
    
    Very good Mark, how long did it take for you to think that one up?
    
    
    CHARLEY

Mark,

Would you care to contrast the (laudable) expressions of your constitution
with the rather sinister forms of "Political Correctness" that we see in
modern-day USA?

regards,
//alan

    >the rather sinister forms of "Political Correctness" that we see in
    >modern-day USA?
    
    I'm not sure what you mean by this Alan, but for me the classic example
    is the McCarthy era that committee investigating "unamerican
    activities." The communist playwrite Bertold Brecht appeared before this 
    lot of stooges, and a good story came out of it. The day after his 
    appearance a friend of Brecht's in Paris was buying a newspaper with 
    reports of Brecht's appearance on the front page. Just as he was
    standing at the kiosk looking at the paper he looked up and there was
    Brecht himself buying the same paper! "What the hell are you doing
    here," he asked,"I thought you were in America ?" 
    
    "I flew out yesterday after the hearing," explained Brecht. "When
    someone starts to accuse you of trying to steal the Statue of Liberty
    it is time to move on."
    
    Brecht's testimony before the committee is said to be very funny, with
    lots of jokes at the expense of the committee which they did not
    understand, but I have never seen a copy of it.
    
    Kevin 

    >>the rather sinister forms of "Political Correctness" that we see in
    >>modern-day USA?
    >I'm not sure what you mean by this Alan, 

Kevin,

Very good points about McCartheyism, though not what I was thinking of.

In fact, I was thinking of a amateur musical theatre group who had been about
to perform Gilbert and Sullivan's "The Mikado".  Unfortunately they were
unable to, because some group decided that it was an unacceptable show because
of its racist overtones.

As anyone who konws anything whatsoever about this show will tell you, the
only people mocked in it are the English (specifically English, not British).
Of course, that point was entirely missed on the protestors...

Land of the free?  Not so, methinks...

regards,
//alan

    
    ..that earth-air isotropic interface disruption device that one's
    gardener uses.
    
    Truth is the first casualty in War: Language comes close in second.
    
    George Orwell's 1984, and his earlier essays in Inside the Whale and
    Other Stories (I think) use and describe the vocabulary that pressure
    groups and those in power use to obfuscate the reality behind
    "Newspeak" -- language hijacked and curtailed for ulterior motives.
    
    "Collateral damage" is a term that springs easily to mind: "Ethnic
    cleansing" is another. Both terms are carefully chosen to limit
    graphic understanding of the wholesale slaughter and disposession of 
    innocent people.
    
    The Politically Correct in both the US and here in the UK are no
    strangers to the powerful limitations that language constraint places
    not only on Freedom of Speach, but also freedom of thought and
    expression.
    
    The language, art and aesthetic of "Dead White European Males" (DWEMs)
    is one such casualty of the rabid right in US campuses.
    
    The florid language used by large corporates provides a wealth of
    examples: Outsourced, downsized, rightsized, TSFOed, SROed, cutbacks
    mean greater efficiency, you get a negative pay increase this year..
    I could go on, but I'll finish with a true story.
    
    A former colleague was then the UK Scrabble chapmpion. An English
    Sunday newspaper, The Mail on Sunday, contacted him for a short
    piece on his reaction to the new PC pressure on the folks who publish
    the Scrabble Dictionary to remove words which they found to be
    offensive..
    
    Deary me.. there's always the TV to go home to.. 
    
    John
    
     

    

    
    Please understand that I don't support the "Red Scare" of the 1950's
    which is when Joe McCarthy operated.  I also don't enjoy the
    politically correct, thought/word police who have taken their crusade to
    an extreme.
    
    And believe me, I am absolutely not going to dive into a "my country is
    better than yours" argument and waste everybody's time. I have too much
    respect for the UK's democracy, and my own, to do that.
    
    However, to conclude that the US is not a free country ("The land of the
    free ? Not so, methinks") is a rather extreme conclusion in and of
    itself. Much of what the PC-folks try to do is rather a perversion of
    the "do the right thing" anthem.
     
    While watching the local news last night, a news story came on
    concerning handicap persons' access to public sporting events.  It was
    also followed by news of the sexual harassment case against ASTRA
    Pharmaceuticals.  In both of these cases, the obligation of society to
    care for the most vulnerable was being tested.  Many years ago, these
    people would not have had an audience.  If handicapped, they would
    remain unable to participate to the full extent of their capabilities.
    If sexually harassed, they would have had to leave their situation or
    compromise themselves.
    
    That issues like these are in the news here and in Britain is reflects
    well on both societies.
    
    There certainly are people who rabidly promote extreme views.  There
    are "animal rights" activists, for example, who have been known to be
    somewhat 'over the top" promoting their world view.  So be it.  This
    will happen in a truly free society.  It cannot be helped.
    
    Mike
    
    

    
    
    By the way, hope you enjoy the holiday. it's a holiday here, too.
    

    You too Mike.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    Are we allowed to say that in here?
    
    jb :-)
    
    Have a nice time!
    
    John

    Monday is a workday in Eire. I'm on at 8 o'clock. But there won't be
    much doing, so I'll have plenty of time to write notes celebrating
    Cork's victory :-)
    
    Kevin

    Monday is a national holiday here in Belgium, but like all national
    holidays for the last two years....i'll be working!
    
    So all those who'll be basking in the sun(!), hope you have a really
    horrible time.
    
    Shaun.

    Great for ducks here, Shaun.
    
    I'll just have to make the best of a wet weekend, indoors, me boy!
    
    Have a nice one,
    
    John

I think the US Constitution guarantee's 'Freedom of the Press' and not
free speech as such. To this end the US press has far more freedom than
the UK press. How long ago was it  that Gerry Adams had to have someone
speak his [selected] words? What British media have ever been allowed
to publish an Irish argument for Independence?
Much as I am disgusted at what the individual in .0 published, rather that
than have a censor who would use it to justify all forms of censorship.

Also, the point of the US constitution is to permit freedom of the press
at the point of publication, it is not to release you from the consequences
of publishing it. I.e. you can say "fire" in a crowded theatre but
you still have to face the consequences of doing so. The TV announcer can
claim that African Americans are more suited to sports than European 
Americans - but he can still get fired for saying it [a real incident a few
years ago].


Another aspect is that though 'Freedom of the Press' is enshrined in the
Bill of Rights, that doesn't actually prevent Congress from passing laws
that restrict it. Rather it gives people an opportunity to have that
law declared "unconstitutional". So currently the US Govt. have put
a lot of Censorship into what can be published on the Internet [hence all
the recent black background pages on the Web]. Of course the constitutional
challenge is under way - so "stay tuned" as they say.

M

Freedom of the media is pretty much the case in the UK.  Whenever the 
Government attempts to censor or sway what they have to say, they generally 
just end up looking rather foolish (the banning of Gerry Adams speaking 
publically is a prime example, it wasn't long before the people doing the 
voiceovers had it down to a fine art, to the point where you wouldn't even 
notice)  The main problem is that the people who own the press usually seem to 
have a political axe to grind, one way or the other, but they usually publish 
what they hell they like, despite having been badly (read expensively) stung 
on numerous occasions.  Frankly, it gets rather tedious reading or listening 
to a seemingly endless tirade against some political figure, whether they're 
in Government or the opposition.

On the other hand, I doubt if the article as shown in .0 would have ever been 
published, but only for the reason that it may adversely affect circulation 
figures.

Anyway, in summary, anyone who says that the media in this country is 
controlled by the Government is either ill informed, a fool or a liar.

Chris.

    A few years ago the British government banned an episode of
    "Star Trek: The Next Generation" because the character Jorde
    mentioned the phrase "Irish Re-unification of 2026", or something
    like that.
    
    It shows the depth that British government will undertake to
    suppress free speech when dealing with Irish matters. This incident
    would almost be humorous, if it weren't such an important issue.
    
    But let me add I believe that some of the best and most balanced
    documentaries in the world come from British producers, both public
    (BBC) and private.
    
    George

>How long ago was it  that Gerry Adams had to have someone
>speak his [selected] words?

That was an embarrasssment for all of us...something that should never have
been allowed to happen.  Anyway, having that man speaking probably loses more
sympathy for Irish terrorists than having him silenced.

>What British media have ever been allowed
>to publish an Irish argument for Independence?

Erm...all of them!

regards,
//alan

>    A few years ago the British government banned an episode of
>    "Star Trek: The Next Generation" because the character Jorde
>    mentioned the phrase "Irish Re-unification of 2026", or something
>    like that.

that's "Geordie"... anyway, it was Data who said that.  Be careful when you're 
dealing with sad Star Trek fans.  :)
    
>    It shows the depth that British government will undertake to
>    suppress free speech when dealing with Irish matters. This incident
>    would almost be humorous, if it weren't such an important issue.

I understand that it was a decision by the BBC not to show that episode, not 
HMG.

I imagine that the US broadcasting companies would probably take similar 
steps if a foreign country made a television programme making a political 
point in favour of those responsible for the Oklahoma bombing.

Chris.

    >that's "Geordie"... anyway,
    
    Errrrrmmm....Geordi actually.
    
    But apart from that, yes it was the BBC who banned the episode. But it
    has been shown on Sky T.V. since.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    
    >> I understand that it was a decision by the BBC not to show that
    >> episode, not HMG.
    
    That's probably true, but then the choice of the head of the BBC is
    heavily influenced -- driven, some would say -- by the government
    of the day, and would therefore be expected to anticipate its approval
    or displeasure in relation to traditionally sensitive material. 
    
    John

    That's probably true, but then the choice of the head of the BBC is
    heavily influenced -- driven, some would say -- by the government
    of the day, and would therefore be expected to anticipate its approval
    or displeasure in relation to traditionally sensitive material. 
    
Givernments of the day seem to get extremely pissed off with the BBC on a
regular basis, so I'd suggest that governments of the day are sorely 
incompetent, your hypothesis is bunkum, or some combination of those two!

regards,
//alan

    Also, let's not forget that the Irish Gummint imposed the same
    restrictions on Gerry Adams and his cronies, it wasn't just the British.
    
    Laurie.

Hmmm ....

>Freedom of the media is pretty much the case in the UK.  Whenever the 
>Government attempts to censor or sway what they have to say, they generally 
>just end up looking rather foolish (the banning of Gerry Adams speaking 
>publically is a prime example, it wasn't long before the people doing the 
>voiceovers had it down to a fine art, to the point where you wouldn't even 
>notice)

>Anyway, in summary, anyone who says that the media in this country is 
>controlled by the Government is either ill informed, a fool or a liar.

I guess I don't understand these two comments, in the first you agree they do
censor and in the second you say they don't.


>>What British media have ever been allowed
>>to publish an Irish argument for Independence?
>
>Erm...all of them!

When was this then?


Secrecy is a way of life for the British Govt., there are 'D Notices' 'Public
Interest Immunity certificates'. Much of documentation associated with the
pre-WW2 Colonial independence wars is still classified, in fact much of
documentation for WW2 is still classified.

The absurdity and extent of censorship is revealed in a current scandal.
Some chemicals that potentially reduce fertility have been detected
in Infant Formula. Can the press publish which brands are involved and
what percentage of that chemical was discovered? NO!

M  

    It is my understanding that the agency that made the statement about
    baby milks containing phthalates has not published the brandnames in
    question. I don't think it is the press qhich is being gagged.
    
    There are many actions HMG can take, but are often unsuccessful.
    
    Andrew

empts to censor or sway what they have to say, they generally 
>just end up looking rather foolish (the banning of Gerry Adams speaking 
>publically is a prime example, it wasn't long before the people doing the 
>voiceovers had it down to a fine art, to the point where you wouldn't even 
>notice)

>Anyway, in summary, anyone who says that the media in this country is 
>controlled by the Government is either ill informed, a fool or a liar.

�I guess I don't understand these two comments, in the first you agree they do
�censor and in the second you say they don't.

In my opinion the restriction put on the TV broadcasts wasn't real censorship.
Gerry Adams' words weren't 'censored' only his voice. I am not aware of any
newspaper being forced not to publish any speaches etc. by Gerry Adams.

>>What British media have ever been allowed
>>to publish an Irish argument for Independence?
>
>Erm...all of them!

�When was this then?

�Every time they publish one of Adams' speaches.
�Secrecy is a way of life for the British Govt., there are 'D Notices' 'Public
�Interest Immunity certificates'. Much of documentation associated with the
�pre-WW2 Colonial independence wars is still classified, in fact much of
�documentation for WW2 is still classified.


Secrecy not is a way of life. If it was we wouldn't be able to watch most
of the preceedings in the Houses of Parliament on cable TV, or read them in the 
regular published books. I can't remember what they are called.

�The absurdity and extent of censorship is revealed in a current scandal.
�Some chemicals that potentially reduce fertility have been detected
�in Infant Formula. Can the press publish which brands are involved and
�what percentage of that chemical was discovered? NO!


Unlike the Daily Mail who published the names of the products. What the 
government is doing is refusing to give the details to the bEuroprats in
the EU as part of the fight against the beef export bans.



Simon

>I guess I don't understand these two comments, in the first you agree they do
>censor and in the second you say they don't.

the government occasionally tries (usually unsuccessfully) to censor stuff.  
This is in no way akin to having control of the media.

Chris.

>    >that's "Geordie"... anyway,
>    
>    Errrrrmmm....Geordi actually.

bugger.  You're right, you know.  Don't you just hate it when that happens?

Chris.

Chris,

it just means you're not totally sad.


Simon

re .26

>>>What British media have ever been allowed
>>>to publish an Irish argument for Independence?
>>Erm...all of them!
>When was this then?

You asked when the media have been allowed to publish an Irish argument for
independece.  I believe that the media have always been allowed to, though
for a while they were prevented from publishing one particular group's
argument.

That the media may not have chosen to publish what you want to see published
is a different matter altogether.

>The absurdity and extent of censorship is revealed in a current scandal.
>Some chemicals that potentially reduce fertility have been detected
>in Infant Formula. Can the press publish which brands are involved and
>what percentage of that chemical was discovered? NO!

According to the (rather confused) news broadcasts over the weekend, the
tests that had been made were on a cocktail of all brands and so the answer
was not known at the time.  However, the level was between one-quarter and
one-seventeenth of the smallest amount ever known to have had any effect on
rats.

Furthermore, the world's prime researcher on the effects of the checmicals
said that the only effects were during foetal development, and it's really
difficult to feed unborn foetuses formula baby milk.

Another outbreak of mad journalist disease, all in all...

//atp

>I understand that it was a decision by the BBC not to show that episode, not 
>HMG.
    
    I think your splitting hairs Chris. Isn't the BBC partly funded
    by HMG? If so then draw your own conclusions.

>I imagine that the US broadcasting companies would probably take similar 
>steps if a foreign country made a television programme making a political 
>point in favour of those responsible for the Oklahoma bombing.
    
    No. They wouldn't. And anyhow you're comparing apples to oranges.
    
    /Geo

    >Also, let's not forget that the Irish Gummint imposed the same
    >restrictions on Gerry Adams and his cronies, it wasn't just the British.
    
    Agreed, Laurie. It would be interesting to find out if the Irish
    imposed this ban simply to placate the British, or whether they
    had their own reasons for doing so... I know they rescinded the
    ban before the British... 
    
    /Geo

Didn't the US Govn. refuse Adams a visa at one point.
If so then the US is also guilty of censorship to some 
extent.

>Didn't the US Govn. refuse Adams a visa at one point.
>If so then the US is also guilty of censorship to some 
>extent.
    Yes, I agree entirely. Earlier administrations have succumbed
    to internal and external pressures for censoring Sinn Fein.
    I would state Clinton is more balanced and fair than previous
    administrations. And his actions helped secure the cease fire.
    
    Yes, one can argue he's doing it for Irish American votes, or
    that he is giving the "shtick" to Major for supporting Bush.
    Both may be true. I don't know. But all in all, things are
    better off in NI than before. And I suppose that is good for
    everyone there.
    
    /Geo

    My argument is that "free speech" is something which does not exist in
    practice. 
    
    On the subject of Gerry Adams and Section 31 etc. This was political
    censorship which was rightly lifted, but that does not mean Adams can
    say what he likes. If, for example he were to express sarcastic
    pleasure about IRA bomb outrages he would find himself behind bars
    fairly quickly. And I maintain that John Taylor should have been
    prosecuted for publicly supporting terrorist outrages in the South of
    Ireland. It is incitement to crime, but not all criminals get treated
    the same do they? 
    
    At the time of the racist pogroms in Rostock, crowds of people stood
    around clapping the nazis as they attacked the refugees. The State
    prosecutor rightly said that those who applauded were a party to the
    crime. 
    
    The BBC is a joke of course. I think they banned Paul McCartney's Give
    Ireland back to the Irish and even the Pogues song on the Birmingham 6,
    which was really innocuous.  That is political censorship, but the way
    to fight it is to expose the issues, not by pursuing a spurious
    liberal "freedom" for racists. I see nothing contradictory in opposing
    the political censorship which calling for the hate merchants to be put
    out of business. 
    
    The Tabloid hate rags also need to be curbed. They often have far
    more power than the people they attack. 
    
    Kevin

>    I think your splitting hairs Chris. Isn't the BBC partly funded
>    by HMG? If so then draw your own conclusions.

a small part of the BBC World Service is funded by some means through the 
Government; the rest of the BBC collects its funds by means of the TV licence.
The BBC has a reputation for banning various things, most notably pop songs, 
memorably, Frankie Goes To Hollywood's `Relax'.  So what?  It's up to them 
what they broadcast.  As someone else has just pointed out, just about every 
Government has whinged about the fact that they believe that the BBC doesn't 
give them enough support.  Suggestions that the BBC is controlled by HMG just 
don't hold water, I'm afraid.  I'm not sure why some people are insistent that 
this is the case, although I know, from some views expressed in this 
conference, that some people would like to believe that this is the case in 
order to attain some sort of intellectual superiority.

>    No. They wouldn't.

I think I'm as sceptical about your claim as you appear to be about mine.

> And anyhow you're comparing apples to oranges.
    
How so?

Chris.

re: Irish Govt. and the same restrictions

That's true, but I'm not arguing that the UK Govt. is the *only* one that
censors just that they are one of the group that do.

re: Baby Formula and the Euro Beef war

Sorry, in my book censorship even for a good cause is still censorship.


re: Adams not "real" censorship

I only picked on that incident as it was public and obviously silly. 
The real censorship of Irish affairs goes much deeper.

If it were possible to identify a British "position" on Irish independence
it would be something along the lines of:

1. Ignore it, there is no such movement.
2. Northern Ireland has always been a part of Britain
3. There are a group of "mad Irishmen" who want to blow things up, they need
   to caught using the normal "Police Power".

Whenever Adams at al are interviewed on TV or are reported in the press, they
are faced with a hostile interviewer controlling all questions who does their
best  to only permit discussion in the context of the 3 points above.

There is never any discussion of Irish Independence starting from basic 
principles. There is never any discussion on the view expressed by
Mr Barnicle [of the Boston Globe] that this is Britain 'Clinging on to Empire'.
If there is a balanced discussion on TV that means both Labour and Conservative
are represented!

Given Adams past, and his other Sinn Fein cronies, perhaps that is no bad
thing. But John Bruton or Albert Reynolds never get that opportunity either.
Instead they have to talk in coded/guarded terms about a 'Peace Process'.

Tell me I'm wrong but give references!

Mark
  

    Well, the BBC does produce many well written programs - from
    Wallace and Grommit, to Michael Palin's travel documentaries,
    to documentaries about the Gulf War, etc... So I differ with you
    on that one.  I just wanted to point out the concerted efforts
    by the British government to censor issues of Irish nationalism.
    
    I, too, concur that there is nothing contradictory in opposing the
    message of hate merchants while opposing the act of political
    censorship. Though without the latter, you can't decide on the former...
    
    Geo

>    I just wanted to point out the concerted efforts
>    by the British government to censor issues of Irish nationalism.
 
I'm sure that HMG would love to be able to do this.  Unfortunately, it can't, 
although whoever owns various segments of the press may be in a position to do 
this.  I don't think that Tory MPs figure particularly high here, judging by 
the endless (and rather dull) amount of `sleaze' exposure.
   
re. giving Adams a hard time,

in my experience, all MPs are given a hard time by the media, in fact any 
public figure is, with the exception of `news'papers like the Daily Mail and 
the Sun, who are renowned Conservative brown-nosers.

Chris.

    Apples & Oranges....
    
    It's fairly simple.....Not all people who support Irish unity bomb
    buildings or support those who do.  When you equate bombing Oklahoma to
    the phrase "Irish Unity" on Startrek, you're talking rubbish.
    
    If you were listening to what most of us in here have been saying for
    some time, you'd know better than to say things like that. 
    
    Mike
     

>    It's fairly simple.....Not all people who support Irish unity bomb
>    buildings or support those who do.  When you equate bombing Oklahoma to
>    the phrase "Irish Unity" on Startrek, you're talking rubbish.

irrelevant.  I'm quite clear on what you're saying here, but the speech in 
question stated that terrorism can work, and the reunification of Ireland was 
used as an example.

>    If you were listening to what most of us in here have been saying for
>    some time, you'd know better than to say things like that. 

before you preach to other people about not listening, perhaps you'd care to 
check your own facts?

Chris.

>re: Baby Formula and the Euro Beef war
>Sorry, in my book censorship even for a good cause is still censorship.

Mark,

I'm obviously missing something here.  Yes, the MAFF chose not to release
certain information.  That ain't censorship.

Please tell me what censorship has occurred with respect to Baby Formula
and the Euro Beef war.

//alan

    
    
    When I'm wrong. I'm wrong.  I had not seen the episode, and your
    comments are correct.
    
    Mike
    
    

>    When I'm wrong. I'm wrong.  I had not seen the episode, and your
>    comments are correct.
    
I wouldn't worry about it, I make a habit of being wrong, personally.  :)

Chris.