>>>>>>>hahaha...yeah I saw this eairler today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>......Mr Robertson, 75, said on Monday's edition of the 700 Club: "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability.".....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>hmmmmm.... Now isn't Mr. Roberston supposed to be one of those bible-thumping christians? What ever happened to 'thou shall not kill' ???....what a hycpritical idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Supposed to. Seems to have quite a few things on his agenda, though. I found the biographies of different televangelists at rotten.com quite interesting; here is the one for Pat Robertson:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/televangelists/pat-robertson/
>>>>>
>>>>>Is there any way to forbid such people to speak in the open air? In the Netherlands and Brittain (and other European countries as well) only since very very recently the government is able to 'deport' those people to where they came from. But what to do with people who are born in the country and have no other passport?
>>>>
>>>>Well, Peter, we do (you, me and Mr. Robertson at least) live in a free and open society where, as citizens of our respective countries, we may say (almost) whatever we want whenever we want.
>>>>
>>>>The solution to "problems" like Mr. Robertson is to consistently de-value the nonsense they spout. They eventually become twits and people filter their words accordingly.
>>>>
>>>>People like Mr. Robertson are the real test of a free and open democracy.
>>>>Far better to have idiots like him say what they want to say than to set up some arbitrary mechanism that is empowered to mute or penalize stupid statements. Under such a system "stupid" could quickly evolve to include dissenting opinion or other valuable voices.
>>>
>>>Jim,
>>>You write People like Mr. Robertson are the real test of a free and open democracy. Does that imply that eventually he can and should be forbidden to say something? If not, why see it as an ultimate test? What I intend to say is, if others don't take action, it may be
>>>- because the others agree;
>>>- because the others think it is still on the good side of the test;
>>>- because the others are apathetic, rather than tolerant.
>>
>>No, Peter, "action" is not the measure to be used for this kind of thing. In fact "freedom of speech" directly implies that no action is the only acceptable means of dealing with the issue.
>>
>>So it is left up to the individual.
>>Let's use the UT as an example. I know for a fact that I am on several people's "twit filter". Their personal action is to evaluate that I have nothing relevant to say and so they use this feature to back that up. But in the absence of that feature they would simply invoke the action of skipping my messages. It could occur that I will end up talking only to myself. And if I "earn" that, then so be it.
>>
>>It is exactly the same for Mr. Robertson. The more silliness he espouses, the more people categorize his words as irrelevant.
>>This is a self-correcting mechanism that totally excludes the government, which is exactly how freedom is best protected.
>
>Yes, let's use the UT as an example. You and I know that in fact there is a certain degree of censorship here, because there is a moderator. Now... do you feel restricted in your freedom to speak?

I was pretty sure, Peter, that you would mention this.
But of course the UT is NOT a "democracy". It is a business that operates withon a democracy.
The business itself will succeed of fail based on the marketplace's perception of the value obtained.

Indeed, I *do* feel restricted in what I can 'say' here on UT. But I am still here because ***I CHOOSE TO***.
With the government - the place I live - I have no choice. I live here and I do NOT want the government acting like an arbiter of what I can or cannot say.

AlexF suggested that some of the authorities controlling the mechanisms Mr. Robertson used to voice his message should sanction him. I have no trouble with that because in that case the FCC is akin to the UT management here.

cheers