Printable View
Indeed, and libel is America's way of "censoring free speech". Libel and hate speech lawsare founded on the exact same reasoning, the only difference between the two is that the former is for individuals while the latter is for groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Defending one while calling the other horrible sounds strange, to put it nicely.
Do we have to drag out that story about the food critic who was sued for a bad review which was posted here some time ago?
Not at all. Libel law is not the tool of a government. It's there for an individual or an organization to protect themselves against false accusations. If you start publicly saying that I am screwing Nazi prostitutes, the government won't lift a finger to stop you. Neither will anyone else other than myself. I might (and most likely will) choose to do so, and in doing that I will be protecting my personal reputation from lies. I see nothing wrong with this picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
This applies to the US? I've been seeing the links earlier, this has totally not with my question. And it's totally not what is the idea behind the hate speech laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
This is a wikipedia definition of Free Speech as provided by Viking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Outsourcing the issue from the government to the civil system doesn't change a thing. Heck, Mill argues that civil oppression is worse than government opression.
It is not the form of the punisher that is the issue here, the issue is what is allowed to come out of ones mouth. In public.
And as I noted in an earlier post, you now gave a defence for libel that is exactly the same as a defence for hatespeech.
A final question though; if hatespeech was controlled through the civil justice system, would it then be OK?
If you tell lies about me I should have the option to call you a liar and make you stop. Why? Because those lies might threaten my life and well being. Your freedom stops where mine begins.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Swap "me" with "my group" and you have the exaxt defence of hatespeech laws. To the letter.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
"Your group" is not an individual. Libel and slander laws protect only individuals and organizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Opinions containing obscenity are verboten, so are opinions containing "fighting words".Quote:
Not a single one of these exceptions involves opinions.
Nonsense. They are allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Uhm, yes. That be tha point, yarr. I'll repeat it for you. Bolded as a bonus:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Libel laws and hatespeech laws are defended by the same reasoning, the only difference that the former argues for individuals, while the latter argues for groups.
Now, I don't support either, so I'm fine. What intrigues me is how it is possible to support one but not the either. Given that there is no difference whatsoever in the argument defending them, I would think that you either have to support both or none at all. How can someone support only one? Is it logical shortcuts? Tradition? Habit? Blind parroting of what one is learned by society? What?
"If you tell lies about jews I should have the option to call you a liar and make you stop. Why? Because those lies might threaten jewish life and well being. Your freedom stops where mine begins."
Rvg's argument for libel, turned into a argument for hatespeech, with Jews being used as the example.
It's the exact same thing. I didn't even have to change a comma to make it fit, juet the word "me".
In the US, hate speech is perfectly legal, provided it does not violate the sanctions against libel and defamation, or inciting others to riot or violence. This is a core concept in the idea of the "free marketplace of ideas", and the tenant that no opinion, however misinformed or misguided, should ever be wrong.
Defamation is as rvg said, a direct threat to someone's character, reputation, and thus livelihood. I could get up in public and state that rvg is a big meanie and I think he posts on the forums in a less than stellar manner. These are my own personal opinion (not really, just an example) and do not portray themselves as anything more than such. If I were to stand up in public and state that rvg is a deviant sadomasochist who likes screwing transsexual nazi hookers while snorting coke off a crying homeless orphan's butt, that's a completely different story and he has every right to sue the pants off of me. There's a reason this isn't protected speech. Likewise with incitement to riot or "fighting words", or shouting "fire" in a crowded room. These things are by definition dangerous and constitute direct threats to individuals or groups of people's lives.
No it's not. Libel and slander are specific attacks against a specific person or business/organizational entity. "Jews" are a ubiquitous, widespread, arguably (un)defined conceptualization of a subset of humanity. In the US, you could certainly stand up and state you hate jews and think they should all be deported, that they spell bad, look funny, have big noses, and are stingy with their money. You could say that all day long as much as you want. Of course you'd be roundly denounced as an antisemite and a fool, but that's what you'd reap for what you've sown.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
It seems obvious to me: slander against groups does not target anyone specifically. Since nobody specifically is targetted, nobody specifically can bring up the libel charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
For example I can publicly say: "Catholic priests are lying, swindling, child-molesting crooks". That will be protected under 1st Amendment.
If I publicly say: "Father Thomas is a lying, swindling, child-molesting crook", then Father Thomas (and only Father Thomas) will be entitled to sue me.
I can't defame individuals. Defaming groups is okay.
Oh dear. How many times do I have to repeat this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Libel refers to individuals, while hatespeech laws has the same argument but directed at groups.
I see no reason not to allow both of those statements. To me, both are perfectly fine. But I do see the logic in the argument that they should both be disallowed, even though I oppose it. I do, however, not in any way see the logic in allowing one but not the other. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
And as for calling one "no free speech" while hailing the other as a shining light of liberty just sounds chauvinist. Like Stalin, really.
Nope, see my reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Yet for many, there is no doubt that they are included in the concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Does anyone remember the thread here a while back about the food critic who got sued for a bad review and lost?
All hail American Free Speech!!!
A shining example of a speech limitation which happened in the US but won't ever happen here(we fix our problems using the government, not a civil justice system).
I don't need your reference. All you need is to watch one episode of Real Time with Bill Maher to know that I'm right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Here's some education for you broski. Bolding crap doesn't make you correct, it just makes you look a bit more silly while proving you don't understand the concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
edit -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...defamation_law
I am well aware of what libel is, Whacker, hence why I made my original statement. Are you perhaps confused about what hatespeech laws are like in europe? Or the philosophical concept of it ? Or perhaps the way I use the word "group"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
I have little idea of how hate speech laws work in Europe. From what I see, some of it I think is ridiculous carryover from WWII, such as disallowing holocaust denial, display of Nazi paraphernalia, and the like. As much as I detest the idea of those actions and concepts, making them illegal is silly. My response was directed at your statement "Libel refers to individuals, while hatespeech laws has the same argument but directed at groups." This is not correct, libel can be directed at other entities besides individual persons. Likewise, the definition of "hate speech" specifies that it also can be directed at individuals, groups of individuals, institutions, or other entities. The wiki entry for Norway links to here: http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19020522-010-017.html . Since I don't speak Møøselanguage, I can't tell if the exact legal wording specifies individuals as well as groups, as you say. In general though, that is what those terms mean, hence my response to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
When I said individuals, I referred to things like George Bush alone, the Bush family as a whole, Big Oil Company #2 etc etc.
When I said groups, I reffered to larger groups like jews, gays, christians, etc.
You are of course right that hatespeec laws are a remnant from an earlier time, though you poointed at the wrong era, at least in our case(I don't know german pre-ww2 law, so can't comment on them). The time in question would be the 1800's and early 1900's. About 50% av the section you linked to is from that time, and most of them are sleeping laws, ie. laws which won't be used, but for some reason remain as law. There are also other laws which conflict with this section, of course.
Hence a misunderstanding then. For the record, it's not incorrect to refer to a family as a singular unit, or a business as a singular entity, but that's not how we'd generally make reference to those in spoken or written word. The Bush family is a group of individuals. Big Oil Company #2 employs lots of individuals. In short, "individual" used as a noun refers to a single person, not a family unit, or business entity, or something like that. If you use that word in that context with native english speakers, you're going to get some confusion and misunderstandings, so be forewarned.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
hehe..Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Not to detract from the main discussion, but doesn't this beg the question? since a supernova is a star and as such a part of a star system, is it then true for all star systems that they were "moved" by a supernova? Cause - effect chain regress leads to the first supernova and then --- what? BB?
Before the trial, I had a firm belief that he was not insane.
As the trial progresses, I'm starting to lean towards insane.
He clearly has a number of personality disorders, the question is how much they control his actions, and where the line goes between sane and insane in a legal sense.
Or he is just really-really evil. It takes a special kind of guy to go and shoot dozens of children.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
If you don't know the relevant definition of 'obscenity', it's kind of hard to bring up relevant anecdotal evidence (it's not quite what you think it is). This is also verboten:
This means that under certain conditions, you have to keep particular opinions for yourself.Quote:
Similarly, the government may proscribe “‘fighting’ words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
Here the Court was referring to utterances that constitute “epithets or personal abuse” that “are no essential part of any exposition of ideas,” as opposed to, for example, flag burning, which is discussed below, under “Symbolic Speech.”
Check this link for the exact quotesQuote:
The lower courts have had a difficult time determining whether certain epithets constitute “fighting words.” At the very least, they have reached maddeningly inconsistent results. Consider the following situations in which offensive statements were found not to constitute fighting words:
Calling a police officer a “son of a *****” (Johnson v. Campbell, 3rd Circuit, 2003).
Yelling “**** you all” to a police officer and security personnel at a nightclub (Cornelius v. Brubaker, Minnesota District Court, 2003).
Telling a police officer: “I’m tired of this God damned police sticking their nose in **** that doesn’t even involve them” (Brendle v. City of Houston, Court of Appeals of the State of Mississippi, 2000).
Telling a security officer “This is ********” when rousted from a parking lot (U.S. v. McDermott, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1997).
However, other courts have determined that the expressions in the following situations were fighting words:
Flashing a sexually suggestive sign repeatedly to a young woman driving a car (State v. Hubbard, Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2001).
Yelling racial slurs at two African-American woman (In re John M., Arizona Court of Appeals, 2001).
Repeatedly yelling the words “whore,” “harlot” and “Jezebel” at a nude woman on the beach (Wisconsin v. Ovadal, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2003).
Calling a police officer a “white, racist mother****” and wishing his mother would die (State v. Clay, Minnesota Court of Appeals, 1999).
Calling a police officer a “**** ****” in a loud voice and attempting to spit on the officer (State v. York, Maine Supreme Judicial Court, 1999).
This one seems a bit of an oddity, as it's a direct personal statement, as are the other ones in the "fighting words" list. Spitting is a universally accepted example of physical assault, same as punching someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Norway is a secular country, and thus the concept of "evil" has no place in court.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Two lines of thought colliding:
1. He is "evil".
2. Because of genetical or sociological reasons he deemed his actions to be for the best.
The court is of course all set on option two, and is right now trying to see if it is the genetics that let him down - thus sending him to a mental ward facility. Or if it's society who let him down - thus sending him to prison.
Me? I am really torn on the issue. Whereas I support the general idea of lowering immigration I can not support the killing of young people like that.
With that said, imagine spending you'r life as a right winger, surrounded by people like HoreTore (no offense meant, I just mean that you are Norwegian and on this forum symbolize many of the Norwegian political policies).
I'd go a little bonkers too.
The first supernova came from a first generation star formed in the aftermath of the big bang, which is where almost all the hydrogen and helium of the universe comes from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
No worries Kadagar, I feel honoured by that kind of comment ~;)
Assuming he isn't guided by psychotic paranoia(which is the diagnosis in question), he is a whiny little bitch who doesn't have the backbone to fight for what he believes in, like the rest of us do. He wants his views to become dominant, yet he doesn't want to lift a finger to move society in that direction. When society doesn't change through magical means, he kills people. A pathetic, small man.
Paranoia isn't an illness determined by biology, btw. And the line of legal thought the court is using now isn't a modern thing, it dates back to the viking age.
I wasn't making a legal argument, merely stating my opinion about the guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
I wouldn't say evil though.
Violence is the choice of the idiot, the loser and the lazy. Genuinly evil people find more elaborate ways to torment their victims than blind violence.
Why do you find evil and stupidity to be mutually exclusive?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I have to disagree. I believe he very much so put up a fight, and did more than lift a finger.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
He was the first on the barricade - from his perspective of course.
Do NOT get me wrong, I in NO way support his actions. But from his standpoint, and pretty much anyone's standpoint, you can't accuse him of not fighting for what he believes in.
I'm not even sure he failed at his mission. In Norway, maybe. But in Sweden this have had a more alarming effect. No one supports his actions, but the reasoning behind his actions has been brought up to light, and at least it is now being discussed. Not in media of course, but among people.
Let's face it - shoot outs with political agendas will ALWAYS lead to a discussion of the political agenda. And you must bear in mind that just because Norway is all "Uuuuuuuh", it could still make Sweden and Denmark go like "Uuuuuuuuh we don't want that here, let's lower immigration".
I actually think he earned the extreme right a couple of votes. Not because he is right in his actions, but because we don't want to deal with this sort of things at large.
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Kadagar, engaging in politics and trying to persuade others that your opinions are correct takes a lot more effort than gunning down 77 unarmed civillians. The first is a lifetimes work, the second takes a couple of years in planning.
He was too lazy to do the hard stuff, so he chose the easy stuff. He is also completely incapable of accepting that people disagree with him. He didn't fight for his views, he gunned down those he disagreed with.
I don't know how he does on an IQ-test, but his intelligence in social science is awful. Rock-bottom.
I think you will find problems postulating the theory that every star system in the universe, bar those about the same age as the universe itself, are formed due to a supernovae blast. In fact I believe the percentage is very low. The theory states that an embryo star system starts to collapse due to an external force. e.g a supernova. Not that all external forces are supernovas. Personally I think Galaxy nucleus black holes are the major player within stellar creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
/back to Breivik.
"En himmel full av stjerner...."
You need to think like him, for him it's a longterm investment, none of these kids will become future leaders. That is also why he claims self-defenceQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
40,000 people had no other things to do on a Thursday noon? I reckon they could have assembled a moon rocket in the relevant time frame.
Quote:
Some 40,000 people have gathered on an Oslo square to sing a popular peace song which mass killer Anders Behring Breivik condemned at his trial.
The right-wing extremist had accused the singer of Children Of The Rainbow, Lillebjoern Nilsen, of being a Marxist who sought to brainwash children.
Nilsen led the crowd on Thursday in singing the song on Youngstorget Square, close to the courthouse.
[...]
In court last Friday, Breivik attacked Norway's educational system and singled out Nilsen as a "good example of a Marxist who infiltrated the cultural sector, [who] writes music that is used to brainwash children".
On Thursday, Nilsen led the singing in the square of Children Of The Rainbow, a Norwegian version of US folk singer Pete Seeger's My Rainbow Race, which is an anti-war song from his 1973 album of the same name.
"Blått hav så langt du ser..."
Viking, taking an hour off work is no problem in situations like this. And you need to consider the tons of students and school children...
That was at least partially humorous. I am always slightly creeped out by crowds like these. But if the common goal is to avoid getting eaten by the hungry lions surrounding us, then it's okay; as long as I am somewhere near the middle.
There's also something ironic about acting on weird stuff the wacko says; we got an endless supply there.
This is a matter of persepctive, he is operating on a different set of norms to you. From his perspective, he is willing to kill and die for his beliefs - I recall he said he didn't exepct to be taken alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
By contrast, all you do is talk. So, that make you the coward from his perspective.
Me - I suppose my views sit somewhere between the two, but I feel very strongly that to simply dismiss Breivik as lazy or cowardly is reductive.
As much as I don't like the bandwagon with lumping every unpopular ideology in with Breivik's, the bandwagon with calling him a coward is probably on the mark.
He says he planned to die, but I find that hard to believe since he chose not to go down all guns blazing. And targeting defenceless teenagers is a very cowardly and pathetic way to act.
Even if he was a lunatic I would admit that he had guts if he went down in a shoot out with the military or the police.
At the end of the day he targeted the defenceless and surrendered at the first opportunity.
Then again, if his goal was to inflict as much pain as possible upon his perceived enemies, then he could not have picked more appropriate targets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr
I think the "coward" thing is weird too. He killed dozens of people. Who cares about cowardice? Or "laziness"?
I find it encouraging that this is the kind of remark people latch onto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
There are certainly enough coming out that people could react to, and which could lead to much worse things than public singing. So far these kinds of comments have been passed in silence, and I'm very happy about that.
I have to be honest, I never really understood his logic.Then again, I never understood the logic of terrorism for "ideological causes" which are abstract concepts and highly debatable opposed to something far more rational and concrete, for example, French Resistance in Vichy France.
While the trial is in on of its more duller phases of reading of autopsy reports, I thought it might be relevant to share this photo gallery from the days leading up to 22 July last year, for those who wanted some more insight into the camp stuff on Utøya. Not sure how many of the 69 murdered that can be seen in these images, but the guy in #10 is one of them.
They look so happy...
Link crashes my browser. Kinda glad it does really, I want to see it out of a morbid fascination but I'm not quite up to it.
Well, I think most of the people that you can easily identify in those photos are still alive, so not quite that morbid (there were like 500-700 people on the island in total, with 69 murdered plus 33 shot and wounded). The photographer (a participant who survived) might have chosen not to publish certain images, I don't know.
Don't know why the link fails your browser.
Here's a video of the burning man outside the court (after commercial; has potential to disturb). He appears to be a social client that got funny ideas for this day.
I got to say that this trial really gives bang for the buck.
Also, Fjordman once again shows his enormous ego by refusing to testify. Yes, Fjordman, this trial is about you. Not the 77 people who died, their relatives and the man who killed them.
Also, for someone who claims to support the principals of the judicial system, he shows an utter lack of respect and understanding for it. He is little more than a hypocritical liar with an inflated ego.
Hardly, that is a strange thought mia muca. Frordman is mentioned in the manifest, the one Breivik started writing 10 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
What do you want, to have critisism of Islam on trial or Andres Breivik? It is not the same thing.
I want a fair trial, and a fair trial means that the defense is free to construct their defense as they want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Fjordman shows a blatant disrespect for this process, which is the very foundation of the modern judicial system.
Just showing up have hurt the judicial proces as he had nothing to do with it. What exactly do you want to put on trial really, I think just another opinion. What is fjordman supposed to say? Sorry that my texts were copy pasted? I would avoid that show like the plague as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Exactly what the defense wants, I don't know, but my guess is that they want to show that ABB's views are not a consequence of a personality disorder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
A defense can call whoever they feel will help their case. ABB and his defene is of the opinion that Fjordman can give insights that will be beneficial for the defense. Disregarding that is mocking the judicial process.
That fjordman thinks he "is put on trial" just shows what an enormous ego the idiot has.
I think you are making a mistake by trying to link islamcritisism to what Breivik did it's not just a bit cheap. You want Frordman dragged into court but he didn't do anything. Thought police oh yes. It probably doesn't surprise you if I say that I read his blogs, no harm doneQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I want him "dragged to court" because ABB wants it, as I want all those accused of crimes to defend themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Of course he didn't do anything, he's summoned as a witness. Frank Aarebrot and Mullah Krekar among a dozen others are also witnessing on the same grounds as Fjordman, and none of those have had anything to do with this case either, yet they all honour the court. Why? Because they believe in the concept of a fair trial, something Fjordman proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he does not. The only thing fjordman believes in is his massive ego and paranoid delusions.
Er, could someone explain this to me, what's happened?
What incident? Fjordman, the shoe-thrower or the burning man?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
All three would be nice, I havent been keeping track of the story much and you and frag's post's seem to come out of nowhere.
Ah well. All three then:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Shoe-thrower:
On friday(or was it thursday) last week the brother of a victim threw his shoe in Breivik's direction, yelling "you killer, you killer" before being taken care of by the guards and paramedics. Obviously some kind of mental breakdown. He was calmed down in another room before being rushed to the hospital. The man is an Iraqi citizen, who had flown in this day because it was the day his brother was discussed in the case. My conclusion is that the group theraphy set up for the victims has really been beneficial. This man has been alone with all his grief, in a distant country, I don't think it's a coincidence that he is the one with the breakdown.
The burning man: a man in his forties set himself on fire outside the court today. He has no relation to the case, but other than that there is little information. It's hinted that he was denied some kind of benefit or permit and that it was some kind of desperate action.
Fjordman:
The defense has submitted its witness list. A long one, with around 20-30 witnesses. The list can be divided in two. First there's a group that deals with political stuff, mostly extremism in various forms. The other group consists of psychologists and such.
ABB's defense strategy is to be found sane, and all the witnesses are summoned for that purpose. The second group is self-explanatory to that end. The first group is more interesting. It seems that the strategy is to prove that ABB's political views are not the result of paranoia, but that there are several people who share his views. So, he has summoned some historians, some politcal experts and some extremists of all colours. The list is restricted to norwegians, probably because only norwegians have a legal obligation to testify when summoned. Two of the summoned have stated their intention to disobey the court order, Stein Lillevolden(living in Copenhagen) and Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen, aka Chubby Curly Hair aka fjordman(living in Israel). Lillevolden has no respect for the judicial system whatsoever, so he's wasn't a big surprise. Fjordman, on the other hand, claims to defend the legal system, so he has shown himself as a complete hypocrite by his refusal.
Can I just say, I have a powerful and very un-Christian desire to be the one to execute this Cur with a greataxe.
I don't think I'm the only one, and that's the most disturbing thing about all this.
As you are a conservative, you are not alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Had you been a Norwegian leftie, you would be very alone.
....I think your the only one who think's he deserves something as clean as a greataxe.Quote:
I don't think I'm the only one, and that's the most disturbing thing about all this
I'm a conservative Christian who has more or less renounced violence and is dead set against Capital Punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I'm not very good with the two handed axe, I tend to swerve to the left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It can get a bit messy.
Alas, anything less than leaving him to the imaganations of the gentlemen in bay12 forums is not messy enough for me.
Yes, and that makes you not alone within your group. If you were in another group, however, you would find yourself very alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Look up Loki's punishment, see how that takes you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I don't buy it - either the left-wing men of Norway are all lieing or they're all so aneimic they don't have any emotions left.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I'm not saying no one on the Left bears him no ill will, but I'm willing to bet there's a significant minority who want to beat him into a bloody pulp.
Given how angry you seem to get with me just because I believe in a Hippie loving God who loves everyone, I have a hard time believing there is no viking at all left in your countrymen.
Thankfully, not all Norwegians are lefties (regardless). The dismissed layjudge did indeed call for his death.
EDIT: Just to say that you might have found the one group that has lost its "Vikingness". ;-)
I have heard extremely few people from the left call for death. And by left I mean everything up to and including the liberal party. Beyond that, I have heard some people call for death. I have only heard one of the victims/relatives say they want death, and that was while he was in tears around the time of the funeral(can't remember if it was just prior or just after), so that might just as well have been the moment.
It's called humanism and belief in the rule of law.
By the way, I find your use of "men" ironic, as the only public figure expressing a desire for capital punishment(and without a trial as well), was the conservative christian woman Hanne Nabinthu Herland. I still have the smack-down she recieved for it from Mette Yvonne Larsen, the victims lawyer, fresh in mind...
Eh, an enternity of snake venom doen't do it for me compared to the sort of stuff the dwarf fortress guys have been known to do just by accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Well, this is the same group where the men want to breastfeed their sons...Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Any time you guys want to pack some of them into a longship and sent them this way, assuming they can cross the Great Whale Road without dying I don't mind getting the Fyrd together to give them a good old fashioned English welcome. Really old fashioned welcome.
:smartass2:
Did I call for death? No, I said I wanted to kill him personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I try to master my base urges and sympathise with the poor deluded man. It's called Christian love.
Stop trying to monopolise the the moral high ground.
That doesn't mean I don't want to drive a blade in under his sternum and then pull down and out so that his steaming entrails spill to the floor, then use his intestines to keelhaul him.
Boredom is a much greater punishment. That is why solitary confinement is the greatest punishment. To be alone with his own mind.
Fjordman is a Norwegian anti-islam blogger who was repeatedly mentioned in Breivik's manifest. But a lot of people were, Geert.Wilders, Hirschi Ali, Bat Yor. I don't see why Fjordman should testify as he has never called for violence, they don't even know eachother. I don't blame him for not showing up as it seems that Norway wants to link him to the events. There are millions of people who think the same way about the islam including me, it's tasteless imho to use the deaths to kill an opinion, I certainly wouldn't volunteer to be a victim of a witchhunt. Discussion ought to be in the parlement not on trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
:huh:Quote:
ABB's defense strategy is to be found sane, and all the witnesses are summoned for that purpose. The second group is self-explanatory to that end. The first group is more interesting. It seems that the strategy is to prove that ABB's political views are not the result of paranoia, but that there are several people who share his views. So, he has summoned some historians, some politcal experts and some extremists of all colours. The list is restricted to norwegians, probably because only norwegians have a legal obligation to testify when summoned. Two of the summoned have stated their intention to disobey the court order, Stein Lillevolden(living in Copenhagen) and Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen, aka Chubby Curly Hair aka fjordman(living in Israel). Lillevolden has no respect for the judicial system whatsoever, so he's wasn't a big surprise. Fjordman, on the other hand, claims to defend the legal system, so he has shown himself as a complete hypocrite by his refusal.