Death to Free Speech in the Netherlands

Remove all ads!

I guess if they can find a use for Joe the Plumber, they can for anyone....

 

Is he coming for a visit or to stay? If to stay, is it because he's scared of possible deportation from the Netherlands?

 

There is no possible deportation. He won't be extradited. Period. So if that is what he's afraid of then he's utterly delusional. I would agree that the British action is very strange indeed. Banning the entrance of a EU citizen within the union is not something that should be done lightly and goes against the principles of EU.

 

I'm guessing he's just here to tour and "have his say" in a more open forum. To be honest, I still don't know much about the guy, I only feel he should be allowed to speak his mind. The conservative establishment here should be much more receptive to the notion of "radical Islam," especially those on FoX, since they rant about it constantly. Expect to see him on with Bill O, chanting in the Factor's "echo chamber."

 

My bets on Wilders, for starters, are:
(a) He'll get a blog at the Free Republic, Pajamas Media or directly on Little Green Footballs.
(b) He will have interviews with that nutty Atlas Shrugged chick, playing a martyr.
(c) You will see him on FOX, playing a martyr, perhaps alongside Anne Coulter.

 

This isn't about wilder but about the loss of free speech here in america
http://therecorderonline.net/2009/02/24/professor-called-police-after-student-presentation/

As stated at the end of the quote, when you cany talk about one part of the bill of rights how long before you throw the whole thing out?

 

Martaug, I find the idea that he was reported solely because he suggested allowing students to carry concealed weapons a little dubious. What we have here is a he said, she said situation, but if we take what the police said seriously, he appears to have scared more than just his professor. It sounds to me like he said something that implied he was carrying.

Until we have more information, this is a non-story.

 

I'm glad FIRE doesn't think so.
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/torch/#10290

 

I think you may have missed a crucial operator in Shibley's statement, which I went ahead and bolded. For what it's worth, I still disagree with Shibley, but only because I feel he didn't go far enough in his statement. If all this guy did was discuss reasons for allowing guns on campus, calling the police and grilling him about it is quite a bit more than "a bit much".

 

Let's talk about it:

http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-cheney-subpoena,0,2198897.story

 

Martaug, I think the investigation into John Wahlberg was both legitimate and well taken care of. I'd much rather be subject to such an investigation myself than have a shooting at a school by someone who wasn't subject to one. The investigation appears to have shown that John Wahlberg is stable, aware of the laws, and a safe practicioner of gun use. He may well be the model of gun safety, but the campus security can't know that until they investigate. As long as there was no arrest, threats, coersion, etc. I don't see a problem with this. Also, so long as future talk from this person doesn't result in the same. One investigation should be all that's needed.

My point is that investigations into school shootings frequently find various warning signs that, if someone had been paying closer attention, could have led to someone preventing the shootings. Well, people are paying attention now. Does that mean that people like John Wahlberg shouldn't talk? No, it just means that they should expect people to ask questions when they do, and many of those questions would be around establishing the speakers mental status and general safety level.

 

Well said NOG (rep bump up for I think the first time from me). It's not like they searched his place or anything like that. The only thing that happened was he was requested to come to the police station, at which point he did. They asked him some questions, and he went on his way. If that's the end of it, I don't see it as any danger to the 1st or 2nd amendment.

 

Having been in a university where any comment that doesn't toe the liberal -- feminist line makes one a target for harassment, false allegations, and bad grades for failing to agree with a professor's leftist ideology, I do find this worrying. The professor in this case sounds to me like one of those petty, shrill, vindictive femi -nazis that I have dealt with so many times. She didn't like the presentation because it conflicted with her opinion, and instead of respecting a differing opinion, punished the evil man for daring to suggest that we should defend ourselves instead of engaging in an orgy of excuse making for the slime who victimize others. So she called the cops for a really, really slim reason.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he did say something in his presentation that would have raised a warning flag in any professor. Maybe she was exercising due diligence for the safety of the campus population.

But I doubt it.

 

You mean like the ones that arrested Mr Howards in front of his wife and kids for telling Cheney to his face what a majority of Americans believe anyway? Yeah, a real "liberal" nazi.

http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc100406

 

Chandos, are you trying to imply that somehow Cheney misused his government authority to have this guy arrested? I think you are vastly overestimating Cheney's evil powers. How about we spin this around a little bit. What do you think would happen if a "birther" went up to Obama in a mall and started to try to get him to admit where he was born? Do you think that guy would be allowed to leave the mall of his own freewill? I have a sneaky suspicion it would be just your guys case in which the secret service would arrest him, hold him, release him, and charges would never be filed.

 

Snook, if someone tried to get Obama to admit to a lie (a lie since Obama was quite clearly born in Hawaii, and only the most credulous morons would believe otherwise), Obama wouldn't have any legal justification to arrest the individual. Neither would the Secret Service. Neither Cheney nor the Secret Service had legal justification to arrest Howards, either. Telling the Vice President that you find his Iraq policy reprehensible won't put him in the best mood, but it isn't illegal....nor is it harassment.

 

TGS - No, by no means am I underestimating Cheney's arrogance. This is the guy who told a democratic senator to go F-- himself on the Senate floor. Mr. Howards is so convinced of what happened that he is taking the matter before a judge, where Cheney and his SS will have to answer for their actions. Everything that happens in a mall is recorded on cameras. All he has to do is request the tapes for that particular day, and if he is being truthful, Cheney and the SS are toast.

 

I can't believe you actually think that. The Secret Service is responsible for the safety and protection of the President and the VP. If you really think they are trained to weigh the merit of the discussion or even care you are sadly mistaken. However, if they see someone who is taking an aggressive stance I consider it a miracle that they don't just tase the person. I have no sympathy for this guy and what he went through.

As an aside, I love that the term "birther" is starting to escape the internet.

---------- Added 0 hours, 1 minutes and 43 seconds later... ----------

I'm guessing a judge eventually throws it out. It isn't like they waterboarded the guy.

 

TGS - I doubt it. Do you have any respect for the Constitution at all? This thread is about freedom of speech, not freedom from illegal torture. For someone who "claims" to be for freedom of speech that's a pretty sorry attitude. I expected better from you, TGS.

 

I wonder if anyone braced Obama on anything in a mall, factual or not, if the Secret Service would allow them to approach the President. I would hope that regardless of the political stripe of the politician, people would not be allowed to get that close by the Secret Service.