Mustafa,
My family background is Jewish. I am an anti-Zionist. There is clear historical
evidence that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, along with Gypsies, disabled
people, and homosexuals. You have the freedom to continue to believe whatever
you choose about this, and you can state your beliefs. But believing something
that isn't true, doesn't change facts. In the US, we have a man who is the
President because he won a majority of votes in the electoral college, but he
lost the popular vote. He continues to insist that he won the popular vote.
There is clear evidence that this is not true, but he continues to insist on a
lie because he believes the lie. It makes him feel good. There are a lot of
people who support Mr. Trump who believe whatever he says so they also believe
that he won the popular vote. But it still remains untrue.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Mostafa
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2018 10:30 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Freedom of expression
Miriam, freedom of barking, as I'd like to call it doesn't have a value if it
is not expected to make a difference. Also, it is restricted in the west to
speak up against the Holocaust's historical authenticity. So, if freedom of
expression is not allowed in all fields, including academic ones, then it is
demonstratively fallacious. Could you show me one thesis at a prestigious
western university that reexamines or oppugns the Holocaust's historical
authenticity. You won't find one. Why? Because Jews succeeded in making this
particular subject a taboo. They may have done so through instilling terror or
threatening someone's interest, they're good at both anyway.
On 9/22/18, Miriam Vieni <Mustafa,
My family background is Jewish. I am opposed to Zionism. However, there is
clear historical evidence that the Nazis
You are confusing issues. Freedom of expression means that people have
a right to say what they think. It also means that people who disagree
with them, have a right to respond. You are complaining because you do
not agree with some opinions of some Americans and because you do not
agree with responses of other Americans to things that you believe.
If you are in favor of free speech, it is only fair to criticize those
people who do not permit others to express themselves openly.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Mostafa
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2018 1:02 AM
To: terri.rupar@xxxxxxxxxxxx; allison.michaels@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Emilly
<amyleblanc01@xxxxxxxxx>; david@xxxxxxxxxx; paul@xxxxxxxxxx;
mdecausmeaker@xxxxxxxxx; sam@xxxxxxxxxx; sharon@xxxxxxxxxx;
kellie@xxxxxxxxxx; lcbelk@xxxxxxxxx; sarahowens@xxxxxxxxxx;
elizabeth@xxxxxxxxxx; samantharosehuskey@xxxxxxxxx;
william.h.hatcher@xxxxxxxxx; jpholdsworth5@xxxxxxxxx;
mahloww@xxxxxxxxx; chuckmarzahn@xxxxxxxxx; tmohlenhoff@xxxxxxxxxxx;
yngveke@xxxxxxxxx; revleonard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
asstpastor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
youth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; children@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
nursery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; pastor@xxxxxxxxxx; tracy@xxxxxxxxxx;
blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; rharmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
hburgess2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dan.boone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
charlie.isbell@xxxxxxxxx; chaas0217@xxxxxxxxx;
spidamonki1982@xxxxxxxxxxx; iamspiro8@xxxxxxxxx;
ckrugman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; pmikeal@xxxxxxxxxxx; bchiles@xxxxxxxxx;
adicey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; rascal0826@xxxxxxxxxxx;
david.burleigh@xxxxxxxxxx; luther.burney@xxxxxxxxxx;
joshua.carver@xxxxxxxxxx; dennis.clark@xxxxxxxxxx;
scott.mckenzie@xxxxxxxxxx; rjohnson01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
rshapard12@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mrodriguez16@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
pherold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; danC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
rJones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Victor of Canada
<victor.gouveia@xxxxxxxxxx>; dgkerwood@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Freedom of expression
Freedom of speech is the right to express your independent opinions
and convictions in public without being restrained, threatened or censored.
Ordinarily, the United States is prejudiciously portrayed as the
paragon of free expression worldwide. I distinctly destine to pick
Americanism apart.
Each and everyone in many regions across the globe is entitled to
opine his opinion freely. The United States did not invent the right
of free expression. It is not exclusive to American Constitution or its
amendments.
Freedom of expression is openly practiced therein as long as Islam is
incessantly denigrated.
Nevertheless, if someone oppugned the holocaust or its chronicle's
authenticity, for instance, he is instantly subjected to counterfeit
allegations of antisemitism. This is my endeavour concern of American
double standard. When a Muslim Commits mass murder, he is
unhesitatingly labelled with perpetrating terror. However, if a white
supremacist committed mass murder with even higher rate of fatalities,
he is classified as a demented and atypical individual. I have no
idea, how to illustrate this plain contradiction? How could you be
fairish and oppressive simultaneously? I respect decent Americans. Be
that as it may, as to Americanism, how could you consistently be
guilty, jury and judge concurrently? Freedom of expression is the
major factor by which the United States is allegedly portrayed with
unprecedented prodigy. However, freedom of expression therein seems to
somewhat be infructuous. So for instance, as to America's longstanding
crisis of culpably perennial fatal mass shootings, the National Rifle
Association blocks any congressional bill which aims to relatively rectify
the pitiful situation. For them, the subject is just unforfeitable.
Thence, freedom of expression resembles emptied rhetoric at some
point. If your freedom of expression doesn't allow you to enact
freely, your words may equate some bunch of barking dogs.
Who cares if the dog barks at him? In other words, if the National
Rifle Association listens incautiously to periodical congressional
criticism of irrepressible munition across the nation, what is the
significance of their critique then? What is the point of
congressional authorities being critical of unrestricted gun mongers?
I urge you folks to ponder on my proposition. Yes, here in Egypt,
freedom of expression is perfectly missing. If someone spoke against
Sisi's regime or his coup based governance, he is emphatically
subjected to scathingly be detained, imprisoned and ruthlessly
excruciated. We recognise that and we fairly admit freedom of
expression total absence. This is quite unfortunate but factual. We
couldn't deny it or wrongly fend for the military based dictator.
However, we strenuously strive in the cause of favourably retaining
its prosperity. Liberal media may have spoke against Donald Trump and
his policies of implementing racial disparity in addition to farther
major catastrophes hitherto, they are not able to alter the way he
deliberately perpetrates cruelty. So for instance, as for the issue of
remanded children because their parents immigrated illicitly, why
haven't they been just expatriated along with their families? The
media brought the subject briefly and then, closed the file while the prob
hasn't yet been resolved.
Principally, the conception of unequivocally free speech in the United
States is an enormous fib. Do you know what is really free in the
States? It is greed and corporal establishment. This vividly reflects
the dominance of patrician landholders of the American South as of
pastoral panel and other chiselers. Who could have spoke out against
Israel's brutality which is relentlessly imposed on decently innocent
civilians as of women and children in the congressional arena? There
is no one member in the Congress who could have spoke in the favour of
Palestinian refugee crisis unless he aims to infinitely lose his seat.
Is this what you ironically call freedom? I believe it is crucial to
sincerely reconsider the American portraiture of free expression and
measure that according to actual information. Is American vision of
free expression sufficiently genuine? I won't answer this question for now.
I'll rather leave it at your hand, so you could have a chance to think
about it and come up with the proper answer. I destine to considerably
expand the discussion of this subject because it is of mutual
interest. I at least think so. Thank you for reading, Mustafa Almahdy.
Best wishes, it is always hope that gives meaning to life.
___________________