[jonottawa]

ralph23, on Oct 17 2007, 08:45 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Oct 17 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

I think the comments with respect to Iran are inappropriate and should be removed.

Weren't you just supporting free speech, or was I confused?

Gee, here we go with "appropriate" again !!

Smearing an entire country because you listen to too much talk radio or watch too much FoxNoise is inappropriate for this forum.

Creating a 'common enemy' to rail against is a deplorable political ruse that has overstayed its welcome. When I see people doing it in a forum like this, I'll call them on it.

Had the comments come from an Iranian, it's a much closer call and I wouldn't have felt strongly enough to weigh in one way or the other.

[bid_em_up]

jonottawa, on Oct 17 2007, 03:42 PM, said:

I think the comments with respect to Iran are inappropriate and should be removed.

Mr. Everything-Goes thinks something is inappropriate and wants it removed?

Wow.

Surely you are not serious?

Or only if it offends you, then it needs to be removed. If it offends anybody else, you dont care, is that it?

[pclayton]

It's interesting that those that are supportive of political expression at these events are relying on two very extreme situations to make their case:

Cherdano mentions:

Quote

"Nuke Norway, because all their bridge players are cheaters"

as an example of an inapproriate sign. We can all agree on that, right?

Jon brought up:

Quote

Hypothetical: It's 1937 and a team from Germany participates in the world championships. They hold up a sign opposing Hitler's persecution of the Jews.

as an example of a sign that everyone would support. Everyone agree? Good.

The topic of discussion isn't genocide, or nuking a peaceful Scandinavian country. It was a statement by the VC team that they 'didn't vote for bush'.

Well, I can't stand the Chimp either, but I have many friends that did vote for him, and still support him. Polls still say that 37% of the country approves of the job he's doing. Does the other 63% that agree with us have the right to determine what is appropriate and what isn't? It is a controversial statement and their opinion is far from universal.

By 17 pages of commentary, the bridge community has determined that this act was controversial. Not because its an anti-Bush sentiment - has anyone actually denigrated the act because of the message it sent? The issue is because it occurred on the winner's podium.

Jon also referenced:

Quote

"The difficulty of defining obscenity was memorably summarized by Justice Stewart in a concurring opinion when he said: "I know it when I see it.""

He wasn't defining obscenity, Potter was defining "hard-core pornography". Sort of like defining the color "red" and defining a finite shade of red.

Jon, the only reason for you to bring this up is to demonstrate that *you* know whats appropriate and what isn't. I sure as hell don't. You just nominated yourself to the WBF Sign Committee. Take a seat on that slippery slope.

However, I think this is one of the points Fred is making. If you can't define what's appropriate and what isn't then you shouldn't allow it. If some people rate to be offended from a worldwide perspective, then its inappropriate.

[mike777]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


I think many get confused over this whole first admendment stuff.

Congress/Government shall make no law..........The ACBL, WBF, your job and your house can pass all kinds of laws......abridging the freedom of speech.

[ralph23]

jonottawa, on Oct 17 2007, 05:03 PM, said:

ralph23, on Oct 17 2007, 08:45 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Oct 17 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

I think the comments with respect to Iran are inappropriate and should be removed.

Weren't you just supporting free speech, or was I confused?

Gee, here we go with "appropriate" again !!

Smearing an entire country because you listen to too much talk radio or watch too much FoxNoise is inappropriate for this forum.

Creating a 'common enemy' to rail against is a deplorable political ruse that has overstayed its welcome. When I see people doing it in a forum like this, I'll call them on it.

Had the comments come from an Iranian, it's a much closer call and I wouldn't have felt strongly enough to weigh in one way or the other.

ROFL !!

[ralph23]

Walddk, on Oct 17 2007, 04:53 PM, said:

ralph23, on Oct 17 2007, 10:45 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Oct 17 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

I think the comments with respect to Iran are inappropriate and should be removed.

Weren't you just supporting free speech, or was I confused?

Gee, here we go with "appropriate" again !!

Only the free speech Jon approves of. Anything else is inappropriate. Mentioning Iran was too much for him it appears. Scared? If yes, of what?

Judging by his other posts, Jon wants to allow all signs. Does that only apply to the podium of a victory ceremony. Is a post in the BBF Forums over the top?

Roland

Yes, of course, especially when made about a country whose President thinks the Holocaust was a big fib made up by the pro-Israel media!!

It's really just too funny for comment.

[helene_t]

pclayton, on Oct 17 2007, 11:17 PM, said:

Jon, the only reason for you to bring this up is to demonstrate that *you* know whats appropriate and what isn't. I sure as hell don't. You just nominated yourself to the WBF Sign Committee. Take a seat on that slippery slope.

Good grief, nobody here is advocating the existence of such a committee, let alone insisting on getting a seat in such a committee for themselves.

If you can't follow all of this confusing debate, fair enough, I can't follow all of it either, but then just contribute your own POV instead of making up parodies of other posters' POV.

[ralph23]

mike777, on Oct 17 2007, 05:18 PM, said:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


I think many get confused over this whole first admendment stuff.

Congress/Government shall make no law..........The ACBL, WBF, your job and your house can pass all kinds of laws......abridging the freedom of speech.

Actually, it doesn't say "Government" at all. It says "Congress". As in the US Congress in Washington D.C.

It makes no mention of any state regulatory authority.

[Walddk]

helene_t, on Oct 17 2007, 11:26 PM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 17 2007, 11:17 PM, said:

Jon, the only reason for you to bring this up is to demonstrate that *you* know whats appropriate and what isn't. I sure as hell don't. You just nominated yourself to the WBF Sign Committee. Take a seat on that slippery slope.

Good grief, nobody here is advocating the existence of such a committee, let alone insisting on getting a seat in such a committee for themselves.

Helene, are you sure you read the very first post of this thread? This committee must be established if "some" is an option.

Roland

[helene_t]

Walddk, on Oct 17 2007, 11:30 PM, said:

This committee must be established if "some" is an option.

Fred claims to have argued that this logic indeed holds. I never accepted that premise, nor did Jon. See also Arend's post.

Frankly, I think Fred's position is utter absurd, but since I have a lot of respect for Fred I'm inclined to thinking that I have misunderstood his question. Quite possibly I still haven't understood what Fred means by "appropriate" in this context.

[hotShot]

ralph23, on Oct 17 2007, 10:40 PM, said:

May be right about Iran !! And yes, some European countries do have laws forbidding this kind of speech. Which is why I staged the event in Chicago, not Berlin.

But such speech is legal in the US, i.e. state and federal governments are constitutionallly barred from criminally punishing such speech.

So ... even though legal where made, are you saying then that it's NOT ok with you? Or that it is, since it's legal where made?

I guess I was confused as to your view.

It's not my view that is confused here.

Quote

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

The European constitutions I'm familiar with guaranty the dignity of human beings and freedom of speech as constitutional rights. This way the freedom of speech does not allow degrading remarks.

So back to your example, in Chicago I would have to practice free speech to contradict that view.

Free speech is not easy.

[Walddk]

helene_t, on Oct 17 2007, 11:33 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 17 2007, 11:30 PM, said:

This committee must be established if "some" is an option.

Fred claims to have argued that this logic indeed holds. I never accepted that premise, nor did Jon.

But who is going to determine which signs are appropriate and which are not? The players, the captains, the coaches, the waitresses or the WBF Sign Approval Committee?

Roland

[helene_t]

Walddk, on Oct 17 2007, 11:38 PM, said:

helene_t, on Oct 17 2007, 11:33 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 17 2007, 11:30 PM, said:

This committee must be established if "some" is an option.

Fred claims to have argued that this logic indeed holds. I never accepted that premise, nor did Jon.

But who is going to determine which signs are appropriate and which are not? The players, the captains, the coaches, the waitresses or the WBF Sign Approval Committee?

Roland

Roland, this question has just been answered so many times. See also Richard's posts.

[Echognome]

Just a talking point to those advocating no signs, which is, after all, a form of communication. Should we also impose that no acceptance speech is allowed? Or should we have rules about what is allowed to be said in such a speech?

I will reiterate my stance that the WBF can outline a Code of Conduct which might be vague or have gray areas, but which, if necessary, can be used as a basis for sanctions. Codes of Conduct are common enough that one wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel and it could be made a stipulation of accepting to play for your country.

When local customs dictate that a more stringent code be in place, the WBF can negotiate with the host authority when agreeing to hosting the event. Imagine that if one country felt that wearing shorts was inappropriate, how would such a consideration be handled? It seems that the WBF should negotiate such a proviso and if they find it workable, they can incorporate it into the Code of Conduct for that event. Zonal Organizations may impose further restrictions onto the Code of Conduct. Then the players can either choose to accept the Code of Conduct or not.

Given that Codes of Conduct are common enough in other sports, and are even used at the junior level in bridge, why is this such a difficult concept to fathom? By the way, I'm certainly not arguing that the Codes of Conduct be the same for the juniors and the open events, nor the same for each of the zones.

[ralph23]

hotShot, on Oct 17 2007, 05:38 PM, said:

ralph23, on Oct 17 2007, 10:40 PM, said:

May be right about Iran !! And yes, some European countries do have laws forbidding this kind of speech. Which is why I staged the event in Chicago, not Berlin.

But such speech is legal in the US, i.e. state and federal governments are constitutionallly barred from criminally punishing such speech.

So ... even though legal where made, are you saying then that it's NOT ok with you? Or that it is, since it's legal where made?

I guess I was confused as to your view.

It's not my view that is confused here.

Quote

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

The European constitutions I'm familiar with guaranty the dignity of human beings and freedom of speech as constitutional rights. This way the freedom of speech does not allow degrading remarks.

So back to your example, in Chicago I would have to practice free speech to contradict that view.

Free speech is not easy.

No, it's certainly not easy. Not at all. How well I know !!

So -- I never did understand your view. (And I didn't say YOU were confused or your VIEW was confused, I said I was confused as to what your view was. As in, I didn't understand it.).

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm trying to ask what your view is. It's really a simple enough question.

So I'll ask again: I think you're now saying that you WOULD support some sanction or action against the maker of the pro-Hitler statement, yes?

Even though it is clearly legal -- i.e. violates no valid criminal law -- where made. And it's made by an American citizen, not a European. Robbie Fissure's never been outside the USA. He doesn't even watch BBC TV.

Because .... er.... it's illegal somewhere else?? Or maybe (gasp) just because it's wrong?

[ralph23]

jonottawa, on Oct 16 2007, 11:49 PM, said:

I voted most signs are appropriate.  Anything I wouldn't get arrested for sticking on a sign I'd carry down to the Capitol or sticking on a T-shirt is fine.

Uh .... unless apparently such a sign criticized your buddies in Iran. Such an anti-Iran sign is clearly the work of US Imperialism and their lackeys, and should be ... er... "removed" I think was your word.

[ralph23]

Walddk, on Oct 17 2007, 05:38 PM, said:

helene_t, on Oct 17 2007, 11:33 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 17 2007, 11:30 PM, said:

This committee must be established if "some" is an option.

Fred claims to have argued that this logic indeed holds. I never accepted that premise, nor did Jon.

But who is going to determine which signs are appropriate and which are not? The players, the captains, the coaches, the waitresses or the WBF Sign Approval Committee?

Roland

The waitresses, as long as they're not appearing nude like Michael Moore did at the Oscars.

[pclayton]

helene_t, on Oct 17 2007, 01:26 PM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 17 2007, 11:17 PM, said:

Jon, the only reason for you to bring this up is to demonstrate that *you* know whats appropriate and what isn't. I sure as hell don't. You just nominated yourself to the WBF Sign Committee. Take a seat on that slippery slope.

Good grief, nobody here is advocating the existence of such a committee, let alone insisting on getting a seat in such a committee for themselves.

If you can't follow all of this confusing debate, fair enough, I can't follow all of it either, but then just contribute your own POV instead of making up parodies of other posters' POV.

Quote

If you have no idea what this question is about, read this thread.

If you chose "some", please explain how to determine which signs are appropriate.

Anyone who is able to provide a good definition for "some" should surely be considered as a candidate for the soon to be created WBF Sign Approval Committee.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jikl]

Hrm, go away for 12 hours and there are 4 more pages on this thread.

In answer to Fred's followup question. I would say No to any political signs.

We have all agreed to some extent that this was a political sign.

Would we have the same opinion if someone was silly enough to hold up a sign saying "Free Tibet" at the recent VC award ceremony? Most of us would probably agree with the sentiment of the sign wholeheartedly. We would all condemn the person for being very brave but very stupid, and we would probably read with interest about all photos and video of the incident being confiscated. We would also be interested in the diplomatic pressures this might have created, this could have got into major press arenas, especially if a US citizen was detained because of it. Would the majority of us want to see that happen, no. If you do want this to happen, then you are in the "All" camp. For those in the all camp, would you want the US government having to approve all future representative bridge teams going overseas?

Anyway, just some hypotheticals.

Sean

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Oct 17 2007, 04:33 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 17 2007, 11:30 PM, said:

This committee must be established if "some" is an option.

Fred claims to have argued that this logic indeed holds. I never accepted that premise, nor did Jon. See also Arend's post.

Frankly, I think Fred's position is utter absurd, but since I have a lot of respect for Fred I'm inclined to thinking that I have misunderstood his question. Quite possibly I still haven't understood what Fred means by "appropriate" in this context.

i think you understood everything just fine, helene... i think the point is that the word 'appropriate' (if the answer is 'some') has to be defined by someone.. you agree? if you do, who defines it? if the ones displaying the signs, then it follows that those same people will think that *some* signs are inappropriate ... see? that means that the answer "some signs" has no meaning, or is the same as "all signs"

there is an internal inconsistency with that position, imo... and i still think those who said all signs (or even some signs, since the two are interchangeable) should be allowed are being dishonest (re: jon's iran diatribe)... there are signs they'd hate and want to disallow