[tweakmonkey]

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani discussed his philosophy of what freedom means in a democracy yesterday at a forum on urban crime, and his remarks left a civil libertarian puzzled and worried.

The Mayor, a former United States Attorney in Manhattan, said New Yorkers were inclined to "see only the oppressive side of authority."

"What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be," he said at the forum, sponsored by The New York Post. "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

Asked later about his remarks, Mr. Giuliani said governmental authorities in American society had fallen into disrepute in the last 30 years. He said anarchy would result if everyone were allowed to behave exactly as he wanted and cited Oliver Wendell Holmes's adage that freedom of expression does not include shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater.

Norman Siegel, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said he was "floored" by the Mayor's definition.

"Order is an element of freedom," Mr. Siegel said. "But to put the emphasis on order rather than on a just and fair society is inverting the meaning and significance of freedom."

Some Free Speech On Mayor's Words - New York Times

[MSP]

New York Times = biased rag.

But I actually agree with what he's saying. Nobody is ever 100% free. There have to be boundaries and social norms or anarchy and chaos are the end result.

[chapel]

Originally Posted by MSP

New York Times = biased rag.

But I actually agree with what he's saying. Nobody is ever 100% free. There have to be boundaries and social norms or anarchy and chaos are the end result.

Regardless of bias, it's a direct quote and not taken out of context.

MSP, do you think the Patriot Act is a good thing? What about a National ID? Those are things that the ex-mayor loves and wants to bind us to, to control us and dominate us. Do I have to quote Franklin about giving up freedom for security?

It is a real sad state of affairs where people would actively give up their rights, rights that the constitution upholds, so that there is more order? I am not a conspiracy guy or into any doom scenarios, but Rudy's mentality reminds me of the dictators and rulers from books like 1984. Who is to say how much and which boundaries are needed to keep order?

Never should you give up your rights no matter how small and feeble they may seem!

[NoPunIntended]

Damn fucking skippy Chapel.

Rudy is going senile and/or wants to feel that power.

[MSP]

I don't fully support the Patriot Act or National ID, I just agree with the quoted statement in principle. Total freedom has never been achieved and never will be. The challenge is to strike a reasonable balance.

[chapel]

Originally Posted by MSP

I don't fully support the Patriot Act or National ID, I just agree with the quoted statement in principle. Total freedom has never been achieved and never will be. The challenge is to strike a reasonable balance.

Do you think we need more laws or regulations to control us?

There is no reason for him to talk about something like that unless he intends to change what is already in place. Not only that he openly supports the Patriot Act and the National ID. So with that information it makes his quote come into context a little better and explain why even the NYTimes thinks this is news.

[MSP]

Not particularly. I think we need to enforce the laws on the books now (aka immigration), and adopt new laws as needed. I don't see the need for a fundamental change in the way we live in this country, I just agreed with his statement in principle. And I was pointing out that this was an opinion piece written by a self described civil libertarian published in a deeply slanted liberal publication. Guiliani's entire speech was not printed or linked, and based on what was "reported" I wasn't particularly disturbed.