Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yes I would object if the US kept out anyone whose speech they found "offensive" based on the terrifying prospect they may express an objectionable idea. I'm surprised you would cite the US keeping John Lennon out as justification for the UK's actions. As an "aging hippie" I thought you would have agreed with me that that was wrong as well.
As for "imposing US policies on other countries" My belief is that freedom of speech is a god given universal human right - not a US policy. I guess you don't agree. I hate seeing a country with a rich history of debate and the free exchange of ideas lowering itself to this. I'd expect this kind of tripe from the EU burueacracy or maybe one of the continental gov'ts, but not the UK. Sad.
Why would citing facts make one anti-American?
How about the US ban on people with HIV?
The ban on Cuban musicians in 2004?
why don't you post a link or two to US policies you've spoke up against?
How about those Bush free speech zones? I don't recall you being vocal against them.
Any country can define a hate crime. Actions and words have consequences. These people who spew hatred and use language to incite violence have no place in a civilized society.
I made no comment on the FACT that John Lennon was banned from the US. Are you saying that he was not?
You're providing an emotional response to a fact. You might want to learn to separate the two.
My viewoint has nothing to do with what actios a sovereign nation can make for itself and its citizens. It's none of your business either.
Your attempt to pidgeon hole me based on your perception of what an aging hippie is strikes me a juvenile, as does your emotional reponse to something that is both out of your control and none of your business.
Not everyone believes in your god thing. Mythical figures do not provide any rights.
Again, look at your government's policies before you trash anyone else's.
Links to terrorism...please....all because he converted to Islam and there a few misguided links. Tell me, in your opinion, who is a greater threat; Cat Stevens or Fred Phelps?
I think most of you who in this thread have a very different notion to what freedom is (compared to other countries) anyway and who the UK denies/allows entry to is really none of any of your concerns.
Besides, I bet you'd scream like little b*tches if a British person even dared to question who the US denies/allows into this country.
As I mentioned I am not sure Stevens belonged on the list, but never the less he was on it. But denying someone entry to the country because he is suspected of criminal activity is not the same as denying entry because you are afraid of what he or she might say or ideas they may express. Again it is apples & oranges.
And I have just as much right to spout off on the UK as any european does about the US. They do it constantly whether they are ******ing about executions in Texas or bemoaning the prominent place of religous conservatives in our society, So spare me the "mind your own business" line.
Why would citing facts make one anti-American?
How about the US ban on people with HIV?
The ban on Cuban musicians in 2004?
why don't you post a link or two to US policies you've spoke up against?
How about those Bush free speech zones? I don't recall you being vocal against them.
Any country can define a hate crime. Actions and words have consequences. These people who spew hatred and use language to incite violence have no place in a civilized society.
I made no comment on the FACT that John Lennon was banned from the US. Are you saying that he was not?
You're providing an emotional response to a fact. You might want to learn to separate the two.
My viewoint has nothing to do with what actios a sovereign nation can make for itself and its citizens. It's none of your business either.
Your attempt to pidgeon hole me based on your perception of what an aging hippie is strikes me a juvenile, as does your emotional reponse to something that is both out of your control and none of your business.
Not everyone believes in your god thing. Mythical figures do not provide any rights.
Again, look at your government's policies before you trash anyone else's.
Since we're on the subject of "banning" here and how it infringes on one's freedom, how about the fact that US citizens are "banned" from going to Cuba, or let's talk about same sex couples in most states are "banned" from getting married.
See....freedom is different in every country. The US has some freedoms that other countries don't have, while the same is true vice-versa.
Nice attempt at deflection.
This is how you respond to what your government does.
You're not worth reading, so there's no reason to respond. I'm censoring you and no longer allowing you to waste my time with your drivel.
Why would citing facts make one anti-American?
How about the US ban on people with HIV?
The ban on Cuban musicians in 2004?
why don't you post a link or two to US policies you've spoke up against?
How about those Bush free speech zones? I don't recall you being vocal against them.
Any country can define a hate crime. Actions and words have consequences. These people who spew hatred and use language to incite violence have no place in a civilized society.
I made no comment on the FACT that John Lennon was banned from the US. Are you saying that he was not?
You're providing an emotional response to a fact. You might want to learn to separate the two.
My viewoint has nothing to do with what actios a sovereign nation can make for itself and its citizens. It's none of your business either.
Your attempt to pidgeon hole me based on your perception of what an aging hippie is strikes me a juvenile, as does your emotional reponse to something that is both out of your control and none of your business.
Not everyone believes in your god thing. Mythical figures do not provide any rights.
Again, look at your government's policies before you trash anyone else's.
In Your original post you cited the US denial of entry to Lennon as a reason I had no business calling out the UK on their denial of entry for Micheal Savage. I am not refuting that it occurred, just pointing out 2 wrongs don't make a right. I don't agree w/ the US keeping out Lennon & don't agree w/ the UK keeping out Savage. If you believe its ok for the UK to keep out Savage because he expresses opininions they find distasteful, it logically leads me to the conclusion you think its ok the US kept out Lennon in the 60's for the same reason. Do you?
As for the HIV issue, like the Cat Stevens thing raised by another poster, you are comparing apples and oranges. I never said a country does'nt have a right to restrict who may enter its borders, I just said they should not do so because they are afraid of what ideas that person may express.
I have just as much right to express my opinion on this policy of the UK as a UK citizen does about executions in Texas or any other US domestic issue they frequently talk about.
Lastly, Aside from your hateful little comment about religon, the freedom of speech is a universally recognized right:
Nice attempt at deflection.
This is how you respond to what your government does.
You're not worth reading, so there's no reason to respond. I'm censoring you and no longer allowing you to waste my time with your drivel.
So you don't like to hear opinions contrary to your own after all. I can see why you support this ruling. At least you are consistant.
Oh and if you read further down you'll see my reply to the posters comaprison to cat stevens.
As I mentioned I am not sure Stevens belonged on the list, but never the less he was on it. But denying someone entry to the country because he is suspected of criminal activity is not the same as denying entry because you are afraid of what he or she might say or ideas they may express. Again it is apples & oranges.
Hate speech IS considered CRIMINAL ACTIVITY under UK law.
From their prospective he is a KNOWN criminal.
It's APPLES and APPLES.
The fact that YOU don't consider it Hate speech is entirely irrelevant.
When you are king of your OWN country then you can make your OWN laws.
The UK has it's laws and Savage is considered likely to violate them so they don't want him there - and the Brits don't give a rats *ss whether YOU like it or not.
Nothing wrong with that - it's THEIR country NOT YOURS.
Garbage, pure garbage. I don't know of anyone in jail in those countries for any of those things. It makes me wonder what you're smoking, injecting or snorting?
And BTW the ACLU and the Council on Islamic Relations issued statements in support of Weiner head.
You'd never get that consistency from the right wing (except for Ron Paulers/Libertarians)..they are more than happy that Bush bans Muslims and Israel bans critics of their Administrations.
They are only fake defenders of free speech.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
