h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Obviously a contentious issue. And thank you for presenting it fairly before coming down hard on the side of oppression in the name of good taste.

I can only suggest that the Cross of Saint Andrew is the antecedent of the Rebel (Confederate Union) flag known as the Stars and Bars. But hardly anyone reads Sir Walter Scott anymore. Especially the Klansmen; they only think and feel that what they're defending is important, they can't really prove it.

And sadly (as you so rightly point out) they most certainly are not defending the First Amendment of the Northern Union and should not enjoy its protection in court.

If American justice is strange to you, don't worry, be happy. It's illegal to own a brown car in California.

<advocate for
~jwf~

I must beg to differ, jwf. If I were proposing a ban on 'South Park' or Jerry Springer, that might fairly be characterised as supporting 'oppression in the name of good taste.' I'm not, and I can't quite understand why you accuse me of that. (BTW, I like 'South Park').

I'm simply saying that I think defending the 'rights' of bigoted bullies to try to terrify anyone who looks a bit different to them is a mistaken thing to do. That's not a question of 'good taste', it's a question of basic decency. Unless you're an all-out anarchist, you surely have to accept that liberty has to be limited at some point: otherwise you'd end up calling for the freedom to murder. And for me, the freedom to be a racist hatemonger is a freedom too far.

The bit about the flags completely passes me by, I'm afraid. But then, I freely admit that I haven't read Sir Walter Scott.

>> you surely have to accept that liberty has to be limited at some point <<

Oh I do, I do. And my usual definition of that limit is the old slogan, "my freedom ends where another person's begins".

And usually I make that judgement based on taste. Just as the judge
you cited relied on his good taste to gag political rabble rousers in Britain for the good of the peace.

It's the subtle distinction between British Common Law, based on fair play, good taste and a willingness to accomodate others, versus the 'American Rhetoric and Debating Society' which could twist a judge into believing anything in a Vulcan logic sorta way.

A smart Yankee lawyer could convice a judge that the only thing wrong with burning crosses is the potential fire hazard or an environmental violation. When American's try to legislate 'taste' they pass laws making brown cars illegal. I know that probably didn't register with you anymore than Walter Scott but this very real California Law was recently challenged and upheld in the Federal Supreme Court in Washington.

BTW South Park sucks blood. It's part of am ongoing disinformation campaign to make Canadians look like stupid A-holes who deserve to have their economy ruined by Free Enterprise.
peace
~jwf~

Fair enough, jwf, and 'My freedom ends where another person's begins' is an excellent principle.
I'm sorry if I sounded a bit crabby in my last posting - it was 3am or thereabouts UK time and I was getting a bit tired and irritable. I think I misunderstood what you meant by 'taste'. If you're meaning it in the sense of judgement as to likely conseqences, as in the BNP 'gag' case, then sure, sometimes I'd support repression of obnoxious statements on the grounds of good taste. By the same token, I'm very happy to contribute here to a website that would never allow grossly racist, misogynist or homophobic posting. That's good taste on h2g2's part!

I can certainly appreciate that having your nation's culture represented by Terrence and Phillip might not be too pleasing! 'South Park' does trouble me sometimes: one episode recently shown here suggested that environmentalism was a sinister brainwashing cult, which I thought was a bit much. But I think it's important to see/hear/read things that challenge your assumptions, and at its best 'South Park' does that for me while being very funny at the same time. I certainly wouldn't want it banned!

Finally, on California and the brown cars: you've got me intrigued there! I can just about believe that such a thing could happen, but I've done searches on CNN and BBC news to no avail. So either I've been looking in the wrong places, or you've successfully sold me a tall story!

From "Automobile" magazine June 2002 an article by Jay Lamm on page 20:

In an overwhelming seven to two vote, the United States Supreme Court has upheld Califonia's controversial ban on brown sports cars and convertibles. Writing for the majority in "California v Datsun 280ZX Owners", Justic Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared that "terms like 'root-beer metallic' and 'shoreline beige' are deceptive; these vehicles are clearly brown and as such are visually offensive to any reasonable person".
Only Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented holding in part that "...the remedy for excrable earth tone paint jobs should not be new Federal laws but rather driving with one's eyes closed."
This latest case overturns two important pro-industry rulings from the 1970s: "Cadillac v Scheib" in which the US Ninth Circuit found carmakers could not be held responsible for unspeakable colors applied post-manufacture, and "Michigan v American Motors Corporation", which granted AMC broad First Amendment protection in the case of the burnt-ochre Gremlin.
Despite these court victories however American auto manufacturers have voluntarily added warning labels to vehicles painted 'misty taupe', 'burnt desert firemist' and other potentially brown colors since 1982.
In handing down this latest ruling, the Supreme Court automatically lets stand a lower court decision in the related case, "US v UPS".


Just in case you are not familiar with UPS, it is the giant United Parcel Service which has a fleet of thousands of large brown trucks. It is their corporate color. UPS is referred to affectionately as 'Big Brown'.

BTW, I hope the promotion of PUDDING in this week's issue of AggGag -
A758766 - will be helpful. I'm glad to see so many have joined already.


~jwf~

BTW - I am generally a supporter of entertainment which challenges assumptions and makes people think, such as the Simpsons or <./>agggag</.> (These examples indicate the range of possibilities and is not intended as a comparison of the two.)

To some extent South Park originally had these qualities as well. But like a Trojan horse, once established, such a vehicle can then allow its content to create assumptions and manufacture prejudice and contempt against target groups with relative impunity.

The writers and network gurus behind South Park are directly and deliberately responsible for the now universally accepted attitude that 'all Canadians are pathetic and vulnerable guilt ridden a-holes who deserve to die slowly freezing and starving in the dark because we need their water and hydro-electric power and we can do that and even keep you laffing as we do it so you won't feel bad when they're all dead...'

it's agitation propoganda, like dropping pre-invasion leaflets
~jwf~

Do you know, I rather think that Mr Lamm may have been jesting...

Thanks for the plug for PUDDING! I have been quite amazed and delighted at the response to the page: I enrolled the 33rd member today! If it gets to 50, I think we should have a special grumpy Golden PUDDING party. You know, throw a few around, burst some virtual balloons, get and maudlin on - that sort of thing.

I feel I should pipe up, since I can give a personal account of a cross burning in America. I'll do my best to remember, since this was back in my high school years.

Shortly after I moved to northern Alabama with my family, a black family moved into the same small town I did. They made the mistake of moving into an upscale white neighborhood, instead of the poorly maintained area where the locally raised (mostly low-income) blacks lived under a steady stream of "profiling" by the city police.

Those poor folks got nutso letters in their mailbox each day for two weeks warning them to leave. When they showed no signs of packing it up, they came home from church to find a couple of two-by-fours alight and most of their yard burnt down. Their immediate neighbors helped them recover the damage and replant by the time the story hit the local press, so the family wouldn't be publicly embarrassed.

I guess it wasn't enough. The new family moved out shortly afterward. I can't say I blame them, either. I'm afraid I can't remember their last name, though it was in the local paper for quite a while.

I can't tell you what was going through the heads of the idiots who lit that cross. I can tell you how the message was percieved by the blacks in my high school, though. They saw it as a death threat.

And they were probably right. It's kind of like the Nuremberg web site that listed abortion doctors on wanted posters with dead ones marked out and injured ones marked up for extra notice. You reach a point where "speech" is perceived as a threat, an an incitement to violence. In my opinion, cross burning reaches that threshold.

Thanks, Frag.

What a depressing story. No matter how old I get, the capacity of human beings for evil, bloody-minded viciousness never ceases to shock and sadden me. I certainly agree with your conclusion.

Burning crosses and burning the American flag are both "free speech" issues. I am proud to live in a country that allows you to burn the flag. What better way to be truly patriotic than to celebrate free speech by burning the flag? I am embarassed to live in a country where people are allowed to show their hatred by burning crosses but they are both examples of free speech. South Park makes fun of Canadians. I do not believe that Canadians are A-holes, no one I know who watches South Park thinks anything less of Canadians. Maybe we need to ban the stupid people who believe the rhetoric and B.S. and leave the rhetoric and B.S. alone!

Go Wings! (lots of Canadians on that team!)