Free speech now a crime in fascist Israel
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:18 am
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1009
You meant her, not him?Randomizer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:06 pmIsrael didn't deny his right to free speech. It did what every other country does in this world which was to cancel his visa as an undesirable person. It allowed him the right to return to his home country and has allowed him to appeal his visa cancellation through the court system where he has failed to win an appeal.
The US has had several more highly publicized cases over the decades where visitors to the UN building in New York have been blocked from entering the US.
Well I'm actually talking about a totally differnt case, so maybe you should read the article I linked.Randomizer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:30 pmI didn't read the article because I thought it was about this case which has been about free speech too:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/10/middleea ... index.html
And here it comes. The classic "whataboutism" argument. Just because "Timmy did it too" still doesn't make it right. I will complain all the time about the US ignoring international law...or trying to impose US law worldwide. Do I have to write a thesis discussing all similar incidents in the past century by other countries before potentially criticizing what Israel is doing now?Randomizer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:21 amAfter reading that article it isn't significantly different than US laws allowing for monetary and legal penalties for acts that affect something within the country that happens outside of it. The major point is collection of damages isn't enforceable outside the country where the case was decided.
Countries have laws making it a crime for actions they feel are detrimental to them. There are some that make it illegal to criticize their government. Trump has called for criminal investigations into people and groups that have criticized him so if you want to talk about free speech than go after a bigger target where there isn't even a law to support it.
There you go again creating your own Strawman Argument where you miss the point. Free Speech is not an absolute right in a democracy. Israel created a restriction after debate and passed a law. The court decided the incident violated the law and there was no challenge on whether this law violated other legislation on Free Speech. The "victims" didn't challenge the law and New Zealand courts haven't yet considered whether the law is illegal and if they will allow collection of fines which probably won't ever get paid because of jurisdiction.flash2015 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:55 amAnd here it comes. The classic "whataboutism" argument. Just because "Timmy did it too" still doesn't make it right. I will complain all the time about the US ignoring international law...or trying to impose US law worldwide. Do I have to write a thesis discussing all similar incidents in the past century by other countries before potentially criticizing what Israel is doing now?
Israel proclaims to be part of the west, to uphold the values that supposedly we all hold dear. Just like the US or Australia or Britain, I am going to criticize Israel when it takes actions which are against the rhetoric it espouses. You can't widely proclaim to be a modern democratic society then when criticized set the bar to be "at least we are better than North Korea". That BS quite rightly should be called out every single time.
And here you go again. Just because a legal process is being followed doesn't make the law less morally objectionable (following your logic, I am tempted to Godwin this right now). Trying to shutdown opinions just because you disagree with them IS wrong. If you don't agree with this I would argue that you don't truly believe in democracy. The chances of NZ upholding this judgement are somewhere between "buckley's and none".Randomizer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:36 pmThere you go again creating your own Strawman Argument where you miss the point. Free Speech is not an absolute right in a democracy. Israel created a restriction after debate and passed a law. The court decided the incident violated the law and there was no challenge on whether this law violated other legislation on Free Speech. The "victims" didn't challenge the law and New Zealand courts haven't yet considered whether the law is illegal and if they will allow collection of fines which probably won't ever get paid because of jurisdiction.flash2015 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:55 amAnd here it comes. The classic "whataboutism" argument. Just because "Timmy did it too" still doesn't make it right. I will complain all the time about the US ignoring international law...or trying to impose US law worldwide. Do I have to write a thesis discussing all similar incidents in the past century by other countries before potentially criticizing what Israel is doing now?
Israel proclaims to be part of the west, to uphold the values that supposedly we all hold dear. Just like the US or Australia or Britain, I am going to criticize Israel when it takes actions which are against the rhetoric it espouses. You can't widely proclaim to be a modern democratic society then when criticized set the bar to be "at least we are better than North Korea". That BS quite rightly should be called out every single time.
That is different than Trump calling criticism of him illegal when no law was broken that limits Free Speech.
Now if you want a similar US case, in Arizona it's working its way through the courts on whether it was legal to require certification that a company doesn't support the Israel Boycott in order to get government contracts. Arizona is arguing that it isn't restricting Free Speech, but exercising its right not to do business with companies that it feels are discriminating against an ally. Right now Free Speech won in the first round, but it's on appeal. But the law is under court review as opposed to individuals deciding what constitutes Free Speech.
I am not even sure what you are arguing now. Let's go back to the main questions:Randomizer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:34 pmBut you just stated the difference between a Western democracy and other countries in that courts can remove an illegal suppression of speech although sometimes it may take decades whereas in Saudi Arabia it takes the king to make a change.
Right now we are seeing how Saudi Arabia deals with press criticism in the journalist in Turkey. We are also seeing how Trump feels about the press too.