OT: Jerry Coyne on Free Speech

[jillery]

I marked this OT because it's not about origins. OTOH free-speech and
censorship have been raised in this newsgroup on occasion, and IMO
it's not quite as off-topic as for example announcing that one is
taking a break from posting to T.O.:

<https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/j-k-rowling-on-donald-trump-and-free-speech/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zktbzx3>

It's really just a short column about an equally short video (< 3
minutes). For those who can't tolerate even that much, the video is
just J.K. Rowling's modern update to Evelyn Hall's famous quote about
Voltaire's beliefs:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it."

Commenting about the recent effort to ban Donald Trump from speaking
in the U.K., Rowling makes the same point but less altruistically:

"I find almost everything that Mr. Trump says objectionable. I
consider him offensive and bigoted. But... he has my full support to
come to my country and be offensive and bigoted there. His freedom to
speak protects my right to call him a bigot. His freedom guarantees
mine."

Coyne posted this as part of the larger context of his comments
against those he calls the authoritarian left.

To my knowledge, neither Rowling nor Coyne (nor Evelyn Hall for that
matter) said whether they include under their umbrellas slander, as
opposed to the merely offensive and false, or speech which creates a
clear and present danger, as opposed to the merely provocative. If
not, that provides enough wiggle room to poke a few holes in their
claimed universal and absolute freedom, and for lawyers to drive
through a fleet of expensive automobiles.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Robert Carnegie]

But there is a difference between the proper rights
of a citizen and of an immigrant, and in Britain
Donald Trump is the latter.

As a British subject myself, my opinion is that we
should let him into the country and then offer to
the world, for a reasonable fee, to not let him
out again.

Regrettably, our elected premier's nose is turning
pink at the prospect of entering Donald Trump's
intimate circle.

[jillery]

>But there is a difference between the proper rights
>of a citizen and of an immigrant, and in Britain
>Donald Trump is the latter.
>
>As a British subject myself, my opinion is that we
>should let him into the country and then offer to
>the world, for a reasonable fee, to not let him
>out again.
>
>Regrettably, our elected premier's nose is turning
>pink at the prospect of entering Donald Trump's
>intimate circle.

Such an offer, if accepted, could significantly improve Britain's
balance of payments.

[jillery]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 06:02:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>But there is a difference between the proper rights
>of a citizen and of an immigrant, and in Britain
>Donald Trump is the latter.
>
>As a British subject myself, my opinion is that we
>should let him into the country and then offer to
>the world, for a reasonable fee, to not let him
>out again.
>
>Regrettably, our elected premier's nose is turning
>pink at the prospect of entering Donald Trump's
>intimate circle.

Such an offer, if accepted, could significantly improve Britain's
balance of payments.

[Burkhard]

Ehem. Speaking as an immigrant to the UK, I know what distinction you
try to make, but this one it isn't.

States do have different rules on what non-citizens are allowed entry
(again modulo the EU), so you mean the "crossing border" side of things,
not the rights someone has once immigrated.

[J. J. Lodder]

Surely you can make him pay for his cage?

Jan

[eridanus]

the balance of payments of UK would improve as soon as they put tariffs
on imports.
eri
on imports.

[jillery]

That's essentially what Robert Carnegie suggested above.

[eridanus]

I had not seen dear Robert to preach a rise on Tariffs. He was demanding
a payment to liberate Trump and deport him to the US.
eri

[jillery]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:34:48 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

Read "dear Robert's" post again. He proposed payments to keep Trump
*in* Britain.

[eridanus]

to keep him cage in UK? Ok but this is not to rise tariffs on imports
to lower the great Government debt, higher than that of Spain and Greece.
I feel pity of OK that was such a great empire. I suppose it was. But if
the common people was farther fucked up in the times of the Great Empire,
than it is at present... well, it is better it would remain as a Little
Britain, and not a Great Britain.

Just a little rumination.
eri

[jillery]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:37:17 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

>> >> >the balance of payments of UK would improve as soon as they put tariffs
>> >> >on imports.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That's essentially what Robert Carnegie suggested above.
>>> >

>> >I had not seen dear Robert to preach a rise on Tariffs. He was demanding
>> >a payment to liberate Trump and deport him to the US.
>>
>>
>> Read "dear Robert's" post again. He proposed payments to keep Trump
>> *in* Britain.
>

>to keep him cage in UK? Ok but this is not to rise tariffs on imports
>to lower the great Government debt, higher than that of Spain and Greece.
>I feel pity of OK that was such a great empire. I suppose it was. But if
>the common people was farther fucked up in the times of the Great Empire,
>than it is at present... well, it is better it would remain as a Little
>Britain, and not a Great Britain.
>
>Just a little rumination.

What "dear Robert" proposed is a tariff in all but name, a difference
of little distinction.

[eridanus]

who would be paying? US?

[Robert Carnegie]

I'd pass the hat around and see how much everyone
would pay.

Only, I'm not sure if you are thinking of this as
a tax on importing Donald Trump to Britain (it is not -
that is free), or a tax on exporting him (it is not -
I want you to pay Britain for us /not/ letting him out).

I think it is "an entertainment expense". At least,
it is amusing me.

[eridanus]

you mean Trump as to entertain the British.
OK