Excellent, never a truer word spoken. Will we wake up before it's too late, or, is the only light at the end of this particular tunnel, a train rushing towards us?

Spot on.

Geert Wilders is despicable, as is the BNP in the UK, and the Danish People's Party in my own country...

But I would rather vote for them than accomodate heresy courts. I wonder how many of my well-educated fellow progessives would do the same.

"When the truth is against the law... there is a something seriously wrong with the law."

Can't say much more than that.

As much as people hate USA, in America, there is no law against Free Speech.

Hate speech is covered by freedom of speech, as much as you might hate the words spoken, you still have right to say it and you have the right to protest against what is said. But when the government gets involved, then you are losing your rights.

*quality rant. Watching one man with no unique eloquence or setup has never been more entertaining.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by demon_ix.

Some context:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Geert-Wilders-brilliant-speech
http://www.videosift.com/video/Fascist-Exposed-Geert-Wilders-on-Radical-Islam
http://www.videosift.com/video/Dutch-Anti-Islam-Film-Provocative-But-Not-Illegal
And here's his movie Fitna http://www.videosift.com/video/Fitna

In defense of bigotry and hate speech......

>> ^longde:
In defense of bigotry and hate speech......


In a free world, you are allowed to be a bigot and expound hate speech. The freedom extends to everyone, not just the politically correct or liberal minded people. Just because you are a bigot or hate monger, you right do not diminish.

The support is for freedom of speech, not the content of the speech.

Yada yada yada......you obviously don't feel any threat from the hate. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so quick to allow it to fester unrestricted.

I want to see someone who stands to be physically harmed by bigots and hatemongers take the same 'principled' stance.

It is obvious that mr condell likes the hate, and is hiding behind freedom of speech to spread his toxic message.

>> ^longde:
Yada yada yada......you obviously don't feel any threat from the hate. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so quick to allow it to fester unrestricted.
I want to see someone who stands to be physically harmed by bigots and hatemongers take the same 'principled' stance.
It is obvious that mr condell likes the hate, and is hiding behind freedom of speech to spread his toxic message.


I'd say the people who killed someone like Theo van Gogh are the ones spreading hate. I'd say the people who bury their children alive in the name of honor are the ones spreading hate. I'd say the people who throw acid in the face of uncovered female faces are the ones spreading hate.

I'm tired of that bullshit.

longde said; "It is obvious that Mr Condell likes the hate, and is hiding behind freedom of speech to spread his toxic message."

I see no "hate", I see someone with concern for future generations. He is not "hiding " behind free speech, he is using it whilst he still has the ability to do so. As for his "toxic" message, I hear no poison in his oratory, just frighteningly real concerns. If anyone truly believes that it is wrong to be defending our way of life, our increasingly limited freedoms, and our right to object to the way our culture is being bulldozed into submission, then Pat Condell is speaking directly to you when he says you don't deserve your freedom. And by the way, he does "stand to be physically harmed" for voicing his opinion. If more people, me included, had his courage to speak out, then maybe we would'nt be living under the threat of our whole way of life being systematically dismantled. He is also defending YOUR right to say; "Yada yada yada......" so carry on and voice your incisive "opinions" whilst the likes of Pat Condell fight for your right to be able to do so.

When I say Condell is spreading hate, it comes from watching (painfully) his various videos that have sifted on this site. He is defending his narrow version of white culture and nothing else. Since white, 'native' culture(s) overwhelmingly dominates Europe, his rants have the familiarity of the victimhood spiel spouted by Goebbels.

Gwiz, I agree that the muslim extremists are just as reprehensible as the athiest extremists.

See, I don't think that at all. "Atheist extremitst" are not bad at all, they don't do anything to other people, there's a big god-damn difference. Equating religious extremism with atheistic extremism, if there is such a thing, is reprehensible - one is talk, the other largely does not talk, but acts. Funtamentalist christians or muslims should also have the right to spout their nonsense, that's the whole point of this video. We should not limit our freedom to express ourselves because some people are offended by it. I'm offended by the bible and just about every word that slips over a slithering preacher's lips, but that doesn't matter. Freedom of speech is the number one right we must have to have a free society. And freedom of speech is not just for some, it's for all.

>> ^longde:
Gwiz, I agree that the muslim extremists are just as reprehensible as the athiest extremists.

You're wrong. Freedom of speech does not trump my right to live in a secure and safe community. When people spread hate, and some decide to act on hate, they violate that safety. You dismiss this because you don't truly feel threatened by the extremists in your country.

Atheists have just as much blood on their hands as religious folks do. Their organizations, philosophies, and causes are just more fragmented. You make them sound like a circle of kum-buy-yah rationalists. I'm not buying that.

>> ^gwiz665:
See, I don't think that at all. "Atheist extremitst" are not bad at all, they don't do anything to other people, there's a big god-damn difference. Equating religious extremism with atheistic extremism, if there is such a thing, is reprehensible - one is talk, the other largely does not talk, but acts. Funtamentalist christians or muslims should also have the right to spout their nonsense, that's the whole point of this video. We should not limit our freedom to express ourselves because some people are offended by it. I'm offended by the bible and just about every word that slips over a slithering preacher's lips, but that doesn't matter. Freedom of speech is the number one right we must have to have a free society. And freedom of speech is not just for some, it's for all.
>> ^longde:
Gwiz, I agree that the muslim extremists are just as reprehensible as the athiest extremists.

So, you want to blame atheists for the actions of religious people, because we tell them they are wrong? That logic is not sound.

Freedom of speech does trump your right to live in a "secure and safe community" if it comes to a point. It really shouldn't come to that though. I'm not saying people should have the right to say whatever they want whereever they want, but that in a public forum we should not seek to silence people who have something to say.

You're right I don't feel threatened by extremists in my country, because my country is the most atheistic in the whole damn world. Overall win!

If you fear that someone might attack you because of what Pat Condell or anyone else says, it's that someones fault - they are in effect terrorists, terrorising you into submission for fear of breaking your safety.

Condell is not to blame for that, the people who react violently to him are.

You seem to want to smear atheists with the blood of someone else - that dog won't hunt! You can't blame people who stand up for your own right to express yourself for the fact that other people want to opress you.

>> ^longde:
You're wrong. Freedom of speech does not trump my right to live in a secure and safe community. When people spread hate, and some decide to act on hate, they violate that safety. You dismiss this because you don't truly feel threatened by the extremists in your country.
Atheists have just as much blood on their hands as religious folks do. Their organizations, philosophies, and causes are just more fragmented. You make them sound like a circle of kum-bay-yah rationalists. I'm not buying that.
>> ^gwiz665:
See, I don't think that at all. "Atheist extremitst" are not bad at all, they don't do anything to other people, there's a big god-damn difference. Equating religious extremism with atheistic extremism, if there is such a thing, is reprehensible - one is talk, the other largely does not talk, but acts. Funtamentalist christians or muslims should also have the right to spout their nonsense, that's the whole point of this video. We should not limit our freedom to express ourselves because some people are offended by it. I'm offended by the bible and just about every word that slips over a slithering preacher's lips, but that doesn't matter. Freedom of speech is the number one right we must have to have a free society. And freedom of speech is not just for some, it's for all.
>> ^longde:
Gwiz, I agree that the muslim extremists are just as reprehensible as the athiest extremists.

When did I blame athiests for what religious folks did? You want to make athiests seem bloodless, and that is not true.

"I'm not saying people should have the right to say whatever they want whereever they want, but that in a public forum we should not seek to silence people who have something to say. "

Which is it? You're contradicting yourself.

"Freedom of speech does trump your right to live in a "secure and safe community" if it comes to a point."

So fuck me and my family. OK, I get it.

>> ^gwiz665:
So, you want to blame atheists for the actions of religious people, because we tell them they are wrong? That logic is not sound.
Freedom of speech does trump your right to live in a "secure and safe community" if it comes to a point. It really shouldn't come to that though. I'm not saying people should have the right to say whatever they want whereever they want, but that in a public forum we should not seek to silence people who have something to say.
You're right I don't feel threatened by extremists in my country, because my country is the most atheistic in the whole damn world. Overall win!
If you fear that someone might attack you because of what Pat Condell or anyone else says, it's that someones fault - they are in effect terrorists, terrorising you into submission for fear of breaking your safety.
Condell is not to blame for that, the people who react violently to him are.
You seem to want to smear atheists with the blood of someone else - that dog won't hunt! You can't blame people who stand up for your own right to express yourself for the fact that other people want to opress you.
>> ^longde:
You're wrong. Freedom of speech does not trump my right to live in a secure and safe community. When people spread hate, and some decide to act on hate, they violate that safety. You dismiss this because you don't truly feel threatened by the extremists in your country.
Atheists have just as much blood on their hands as religious folks do. Their organizations, philosophies, and causes are just more fragmented. You make them sound like a circle of kum-bay-yah rationalists. I'm not buying that.
>> ^gwiz665:
See, I don't think that at all. "Atheist extremitst" are not bad at all, they don't do anything to other people, there's a big god-damn difference. Equating religious extremism with atheistic extremism, if there is such a thing, is reprehensible - one is talk, the other largely does not talk, but acts. Funtamentalist christians or muslims should also have the right to spout their nonsense, that's the whole point of this video. We should not limit our freedom to express ourselves because some people are offended by it. I'm offended by the bible and just about every word that slips over a slithering preacher's lips, but that doesn't matter. Freedom of speech is the number one right we must have to have a free society. And freedom of speech is not just for some, it's for all.
>> ^longde:
Gwiz, I agree that the muslim extremists are just as reprehensible as the athiest extremists.

Then, pray, how do atheists have blood on their hands?

My point is that public places should be just that - public. There you have the right to speak, to express yourself. In newspapers, on youtube, on videosift, all of these public forums should be allowed to express themselves (as much as the owners of those places will allow). In your home and on your property you can decide if people may speak, but you cannot decide anywhere else. There is no contradiction there.

If you define a secure and safe community as a community that cowers in the face of threats, then yes, it does indeed trump that. If you mean that a secure and safe community is just your home, then no, it does not trump that - you can't barge in to someone elses property and say whatever you want. Freedom of speech does not apply there, it applies in public places, in news outlets, on the internet, and on your own property for you. You can say whatever you want in your home, no one is going to censor that as long as we have freedom of speech. Just as we have freedom of thought.

>> ^longde:
When did I blame athiests for what religious folks did? You want to make athiests seem bloodless, and that is not true.
"I'm not saying people should have the right to say whatever they want whereever they want, but that in a public forum we should not seek to silence people who have something to say. "
Which is it? You're contradicting yourself.
"Freedom of speech does trump your right to live in a "secure and safe community" if it comes to a point."
So fuck me and my family. OK, I get it.

Throughout history, the only blood to be spilled has been done at the hands of the religious? Does that make sense?

In public, there should be caps on speech. In the US, the principle of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is on well known restriction on free speech. The line is also drawn on public hate speech that incites immediate violence. I think that we should also restrict speech that leads to violence, as many countries do.

I don't care too much about what a person does or says in their home, if it doesn't harm me.

>> ^gwiz665:
Then, pray, how do atheists have blood on their hands?
My point is that public places should be just that - public. There you have the right to speak, to express yourself. In newspapers, on youtube, on videosift, all of these public forums should be allowed to express themselves (as much as the owners of those places will allow). In your home and on your property you can decide if people may speak, but you cannot decide anywhere else. There is no contradiction there.
If you define a secure and safe community as a community that cowers in the face of threats, then yes, it does indeed trump that. If you mean that a secure and safe community is just your home, then no, it does not trump that - you can't barge in to someone elses property and say whatever you want. Freedom of speech does not apply there, it applies in public places, in news outlets, on the internet, and on your own property for you. You can say whatever you want in your home, no one is going to censor that as long as we have freedom of speech. Just as we have freedom of thought.
>> ^longde:
When did I blame athiests for what religious folks did? You want to make athiests seem bloodless, and that is not true.
"I'm not saying people should have the right to say whatever they want whereever they want, but that in a public forum we should not seek to silence people who have something to say. "
Which is it? You're contradicting yourself.
"Freedom of speech does trump your right to live in a "secure and safe community" if it comes to a point."
So fuck me and my family. OK, I get it.

Throughout history, the only blood to be spilled has been done at the hands of the religious? Does that make sense?

In public, there should be caps on speech. In the US, the principle of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is on well known restriction on free speech. The line is also drawn on public hate speech that incites immediate violence. I think that we should also restrict speech that leads to violence, as many countries do. I don't care too much about what a person does or says in their home, if it doesn't harm me.

• George Carlin Posthumously


• Howard Zinn Posthumously


• Noam Chomsky


• Theo van Gogh (film director)- Oh wait, they got him already.


• Frank Zappa


• Saad Eddin Ibrahim

If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. (1978, 15)

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[28] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.[28]

Hell is paved with good intentions." Even earlier than that, it's been attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153)

Well, @longde, I've yet to see anyone commit murder or violence in the name of atheism.

Shouting "fire" is indeed a restriction on free speech and one a agree with, but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing Pat Condell's right to say what he says, Geert Wilders' right to spout his hate speech, the religious nut's right to say his gibberish. Not whether or not you can cry wolf. There is a big difference between punishing someone for falsely crying alarm and bringing panic (where's the police on fox news with their fear mongering) and saying an opinion.

See the difference? How far back the causality chain do you want to go, when blaming a speaker for the actions of his audience?
Now, what sort of speech would you like to ban, which leads to violence? offensive remarks?

if I attack someone physically, but I defend myself in court by saying "well, the other guy said nasty things about my family", should i go free?

How about if i had been offended by something else?

e.g. "Well, your honor, the guy's a jew, what else could i have done?"



[edit] very apropos article about the muhammad drawing. Clearly, the Muslims should now feel very embarassed about the whole misunderstanding.
>> ^longde:
...The line is also drawn on public hate speech that incites immediate violence. I think that we should also restrict speech that leads to violence, as many countries do...

People like longde are the problem, their ignorance is beyond comprehension They are morons.They have no opinion that is not given to them by their tabloid newspapers or their, equally, stupid peers. No education, no learning, and no freedom of thought. Don't, please, respond to this moron anymore..To indulge his inadequacy is to give him a gravitas he doesn't deserve. Let us debate seriously, amongst ourselves, with educated opinion. To respond to cretins like him, who sit behind their keyboard, sad and lonely, gives their lives some credence.

@A10anis well, the argument is not just for longde but anyone else that's watching.

I really don't think i can be arsed to debate, if that's the correct word, with morons anymore. To the educated out there i would say, go to, as i have, sites that support, and encourage, individual thought. To you brainwashed mongs, i have only sympathy.

to Longde... You just don't get. Freedom of Speech is the greatest gift human beings are born with. Your freedom to think and express yourself is the crucible of Free Society. If you don't feel free to express your thoughts, how can anyone say you have freedom?

Freedom is not government controlled. What you believe in is important to you... so you think government should silence you if they disagree with your thought?

You can't make exceptions, just because you feel it they should be made.

I am no liberal by any means, but once you start attempting to control thoughts... you have lost your freedom.