Man Wearing "Freedom or Die" T-Shirt Stopped at Airport

reply to post by GovtFlu


I believe that you are presenting what is called a "slippery slope" kind of argument.

In other words, you are saying that using common sense in what you wear in airports will catapult us all down a slippery slope to disaster; that slope will soon get steeper and slipperier, and ultimately we all will not be allowed to say anything anywhere.

This kind of argument is discouraged in debating.

reply to post by Sestias


you can shout what ever you want but there are laws for causing unneccesary crap.

simple as that, freedom of speech / expression in a nut shell.

besides my "miss quotation" is his Interpretation of freedom of speech.

and my interpretation of his interpretation is that its Doublethink,

its like saying " we´re not forcing you but you have these two choises you must choose from"

or even better

was invading iraq just a form of freedom of expression ?

And this is why we have protected speech provisions in the US.

With no articles of freedom, or a constitution of any kind, the Brits are victims to the whims of their political masters, but they just don't get it, never have.

I thought it would be appropriate to cover the "freedom" that we have in relation to this story, so everyone can stop going on about whatever America thinks it has.

Article 10: Freedom of Expression

(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Source


Some extra reading:
The European Convention on Human Rights

The Human Rights Act

[edit on 16/3/10 by dawa]

reply to post by dgtempe


Are people just supposed to submit? According to the fashion of the times? Seems like this is a process that eradicates mind and the individual altogether in the long run. Although it does speed up the demise of this Leviathan that naturally collapses upon itself, although it might get worse before it gets better. It is as if the mind of society is vanishing. It is now all about the dialogue, which is useful in the right context. But we live in a divided world filled with fear and hate and lies and a widespread deliberate veiling of the self. I can pretty much guarantee that the bulk of society has a private self and a public self. Very few unite the inner and the outer. This mentality naturally causes hate, as it is an aversion to the other. I guess my point is that few people truly see how things interact. There are 7 dimensions of perspective in my view, with the 8th being a black hole of sorts, to be avoided unless all else fails.

This whole dialogue thing is not bringing reconciliation, as it would if we were honestly seeking peace, which is impossible in a world where most of the human beings carry a shadow that they do not deal with. Quite a few people are just trying to wipe their feces across the board, to have their foolish image replicate like a virus across society, especially those active in politics and law, as the poo floats upward in that arena, as they are dualistic, reptilian mindset institutions. These ever-present warring dialogues do not find what we are seeking; they merely allow the laws to expand and contract even tighter over everyone across the board, allowing the noose around people to get even tighter. Oh well, I guess since we learn by what we are not, and we have both men and women in power, we are probably heading towards a super capitalism/communism hybrid. I used to think that the system was going to fall due to this intolerance to anything aggressive or ruggedly individualistic or certain words perceived as threatening when they just make the person hearing them have to actually question something, etc. And a certain system is falling.

It is very ironic, but expected that each side pulls the same crap as the other, ensuring the misery of both. It is like when a brother and sister start telling on the other when nothing happened, and then there is a reciprocation ad nauseum, and eventually the sibling are both locked in their rooms for eternity with no entertainment and ramen noodles for nourishment. The manipulative mindflow does not like any displays of inetgrity, even though it will scream with affected, melodramatical indignation for tolerance of anything it wishes to do. We can have and do it all, and there are no natural consequences! After all, this perspective must be allowed to express its queenlike wonder, but nobody better dare express something that impresses upon these people, as that is the equivalent of rape! The impertinence! The same thing goes for the other side, it wants to be individualistic to the point of no communal responsibility. It is hypocritical as well, as you do not see this type returning subsidies (welfare) to the government. You see this type wanting to offend, but if it sees anything that shakes their perceived impenentrable integrity (must not have been bulletproof, go figure), it is screamed with chest thumping and twitching that the offense shakes the very foundations of (their) society. It would be tolerated otherwise, of course, but this is a special case. Of course. Selfish poo-slinging children on both sides of the aisle, each smugly reflecting upon their very own game strategy, which carries over into all aspects of society, opening up the floodgates for the worship of the fool. I hope these fools like end game if this continues, as they might just find out it is the game of their lives, but they are too myopic to see the other and the inevitable third thing created from their oppositional mass deception. I am optimistic, however, as I think this thing was engineered to get the snake in both to collide in a singularity and explode in a mushroom cloud. End rant.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by orwellianunenlightenment]

[edit on 16-3-2010 by orwellianunenlightenment]

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by GovtFlu

 

I believe that you are presenting what is called a "slippery slope" kind of argument.

In other words, you are saying that using common sense in what you wear in airports will catapult us all down a slippery slope to disaster; that slope will soon get steeper and slipperier, and ultimately we all will not be allowed to say anything anywhere.

This kind of argument is discouraged in debating.

It's not about the type of argument, it's about defining "common sense"..

Isn't it "common sense" to recognize that fringe loons do, and will, go out of their nutty way to test "higher ups" dictating taste? It is how people react when they feel as if "their personal freedom of expression" is being pooed upon.

Some people consider fear of t-shirts abjectly absurd, cowardly, and likely a sign of Paranoid Schizophrenia.. and will don a cotton blend garment knowing it will offend some freaked out stranger with hyper sensitive sensibilities... maybe just to laugh in the face of anyone that scared by whatever propaganda made them fear a harmless shirt, or to make a point..

Lots of people are just giant kids, tell them wearing a jihad t-shirt at the airport is "bad", and it will become "cool".

But seriously, it just doesn't matter.. ITS A FRIGGN T-SHIRT that I promise won't harm you. Say some "muslim" dude wearing a t-shirt that reads "I want to drink infidel blood" written in urdu strolls in... you could stand behind they guy for hours at the airport or party with him at the international lounge not having a friggn clue what his shirt says.

This story is very upsetting...Im so happy we in the USA have the right to freedom of speech (at least for now). Just makes me so mad that he was made to turn it inside out so no one would be threatened. Makes no sense.

Im going to have to get myself one of those shirts and start wearing it around as a social experiment and see what happens. Sounds interesting.

Originally posted by GovtFlu

But seriously, it just doesn't matter.. ITS A FRIGGN T-SHIRT that I promise won't harm you. Say some "muslim" dude wearing a t-shirt that reads "I want to drink infidel blood" written in urdu strolls in... you could stand behind they guy for hours at the airport or party with him at the international lounge not having a friggn clue what his shirt says.

But what if the shirt said that in English? That's the question I posed earlier.

I don't know about England but I bet here he might well be put on the "no fly" list.

I agree with you in that I've never seen a T-shirt that actually frightened me. My inclination would be just to avoid the person who was wearing an obnoxious message if it offended me.

I was just playing devil's advocate and suggesting that as a society we could be more aware of how our messages are impacting others, and we could do that without passing laws that restricted freedom of speech.

We Americans are often perceived as people who don't give a @#$% about anybody else; we just want to "express ourselves" no matter how if affects others.

Using wisdom in the messages we wear in public places might not be a bad thing to do.
(I don't think I need to define "wisdom;" I mean it the way it's most commonly used).