Responsibie democracy by dreamtrove

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Why does a guy who is considered unstable and violent have a gun? That's often a question in these."

Hello,

I think because there are no government-mandated mental-health screenings of the populace with database records on file, and also because guns are readily available.

Neither of these being something I would like to see changed.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 4:22 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"2) TV stations that air this violent rhetoric "

Hello,

I also wouldn't see this changed. TV stations can air whatever they please, even things that can be perceived as inflammatory or in poor taste, as far as I am concerned.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:13 AM

I agree with Anthony.

Freedom is risk.

If we curbed freedom to avoid every risk, we'd live in a police state.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:17 AM

There is a limit to free speech. You can't say "Tom, would you please murder Howard tonight?" or "hey everyone, kill Howard." because that's considered to be part of the crime when someone kills Howard. It's hard for me to see how this situation is different. It's not that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and Giffords' opponent were saying "don't vote for Giffords," they were all saying "shoot Giffords." the problem with that, and the reason that it is not protected under the first amendment is that even if you're not sincere in your threat, you are speaking to the audience of everyone, and that someone will not understand that you do not mean that literally is a foregone conclusion, given the size of the audience.

Interesting side note: Giffords and the judge were both long term republicans who had recently switched parties. I doubt the killer was motivated by this in it's level of attack, but wouldn't be surprised if the media figures were motivated by this in their level of attack.

When the media says kill, and the people do, are they not in some part responsible? Sure, if I say to you "kill Howard" its unlikely that you will, but if Howard is a very known and accessible person and I say it to an audience of millions, it's much more likely that someone will, especially if I did, like Beck or Palin do, have millions of devoted followers.

Also, what responsibility do organizers have?

In this case, the event organizers were intensely aware of a very large number of death threats against two of the victims present before the event. Many people came to this event, unaware of the danger, and some of them got killed. Do organizers of an event have a responsibility to inform people of known threats of violence and known dangers? Do they have a responsibility to secure an area from danger when such threats are known, in apparently a large and perhaps unprecedented manner. Unlike a school shooting or mall shooting, this was not unanticipated. They expected something to happen, and I read somewhere that there had been a previous attempt. It seems that at least at the event itself, if no security is provided and the hazard is not made known to people, then someone is remiss, and perhaps intentionally not disseminating information about clear and present danger because it might hurt a political objective.

I also wonder to what degree the politicians and their staff were informed. At least one of the victims was a staff worker for Giffords.

Finally, theres a potential flaw in democracy. Okay, there are several. This case illustrated many.

The damage to the left side of Giffords brain is severe. It's unlikely that she will be able to do her job. In that case, it is customary that her husband, the astronaut, will be offered the position. Thats not really a flaw in democracy.

But Jan Brewer is a lunatic, that's a problem. She might appoint anyone.

Also, Giffords won in a republican district by switching to democrat and running in a three way split against two more conservative candidates. If the choice is right, righter and rightest, then the right candidate has a decent chance, and she won by a slim plurality, but not a majority. She has since been reelected as an incumbent by a majority, but my point is that killing a democrat in a republican district increases the chances of getting a republican in the future. That's a flaw in democracy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
There is a limit to free speech.

You mean, like this?

http://www.straight.com/article-367623/vancouver/us-politician-robert-
brady-wants-criminalize-threatening-symbols-possibly-including-sarah-palin-map

Quote:
A Democratic Congressman plans to bring in a bill to outlaw violent symbols targeting members of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate, or the judiciary.

In an inteview on CNN, Robert Brady (D-Penn) said he wants to make it a federal crime to use threatening language or symbols against federal officials.

"All we are trying to do is protect ourselves and our staff members," Brady said.

When asked when the legislation would be brought forward, he replied it would be on the "first day when we go back in session".

Brady made his comments following a bipartisan conference call involving members of Congress about how to enhance safety following yesterday's shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords outside a Safeway store in Tucson.

Six people were killed, including Giffords's aide Gabe Zimmerman.

Brady hinted that a controversial map created by Sarah Palin's political action committee—which featured targets on 20 House districts—would be illegal if his proposal is adopted.

The map included Arizona's eighth district, which is represented by Giffords in Congress.

The CNN interviewer pointed out that Palin's map only featured symbols over top of districts, but that didn't dissuade Brady from taking a hard line. "Everyone knows who represents that district," he said.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

A big part of the cause of the Rwanda genocide was incitement and demonization by the media: "They're" going to take over. "They're" going to take your land. Kill now or be killed later.

It fed an atmosphere of mass fear, which led to mass hate, and mass hate led to mass murder. You could see the same in Nazi Germany. People who do not learn from history, who are so steeped in their purer-than-the-driven snow ideology (I'm looking at you, Tony) are fools. In a democracy, there is NO NEED to incite violence. Spittle-spraying right wing blowhards bear some responsibility for this, as done anyone who says "KILL".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's not that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and Giffords' opponent were saying "don't vote for Giffords," they were all saying "shoot Giffords."

I despise both of them. But I don't see that they have ever said, "Shoot Giffords."

Are you in favor of this bill?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Violent_Radicalization_
and_Homegrown_Terrorism_Prevention_Act_of_2007

The shooting will probably give this act another round, and this time, it will pass.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'll repeat myself: There is no reason to incite violence against individuals. If I were to do that to my neighbor (Post signs with his face in a bulls-eye for example) I could be reasonably arrested for making a terrorist threat, or (in CA) for assault.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
A big part of the cause of the Rwanda genocide was incitement and demonization by the media: "They're" going to take over. "They're" going to take your land. Kill now or be killed later.

Demonization by the media, whose effect is on the populace, has very little to do with actual killing in genocides, which is done not by the populace but by paramilitary squads, which are told to kill by authorities, with or without the rationalization in the media. The few exceptions I can think of include the Cultural Revolution, where there was actually a lot of lynching by the populace; or the Rosewood lynchings, again by the populace.

In genocides, demonization by the media usually serve to keep bystanders confused about taking a stand and to encourage the targeted groups to emigrate before things get worse.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'll repeat myself: There is no reason to incite violence against individuals.

I'll repeat myself. Who incited violence against individuals?

Bulleye symbols on a map?

Rhetoric about reclaiming our country through revolution?

Or should all references to any kind of general violence be outlawed, as in the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act?

If we pass this bill, will everything will be as it should be?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:22 AM

BYTEMITE

"Violent_Radicalization_and_Homegrown_Terrorism_Prevention_Act_of_2007" Shit, CTS, if that passes we just found our 1938.

Apart from that, you're incorrect on one thing. There were names given. The bullseye graphic was accompanied by a list of 17 democrats in contested districts. There is no evidence that it ties to the shooting, however. Yet.

I'm watching this thread, I'm not sure which side I come down on. I recognize the basis of the charge incitement to murder. I also recognize that anyone who spends any amount of time thinking about politics will at some point or another think "I hate such and such and wish they'd just die." Sometimes someone might even say this, out loud, or on air.

It should be condemned as extreme and unnecessary by anyone who hears it but I'm not sure it's criminal until a moron acts on it. If someone wants to try to make someone liable on civil damages terms, then a lawsuit would be appropriate - emotional distress and fear for life from death threats is probably a sufficient claim.

This is of course assuming that the media personality in question isn't such an asshole that they then suggest attacks on the law firms and claimants that filed the suit. Which they might.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Sometimes someone might even say this, out loud, or on air.

Like this?

Michael Reagan calling for killing Mark Dice and Truthers who send DVDs to troops on 9/11 Truth.

Quote:
Excuse me folks, I'm going to say this. We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that's what they are, and you shoot them dead. I'll pay for the bullets....How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don't blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice.

Even though I am a Truther, I support his right to say crap like this. It is horrific, but Free Speech isn't free, if we restrict it to only speech no one finds horrific.

ETA: Now if someone shoots Mark Dice or a Truther, shows up at Reagan's office to claim a reimbursement for his bullet as promised on his show, I wouldn't holler if someone wants to prosecute Reagan.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Apart from that, you're incorrect on one thing. There were names given. The bullseye graphic was accompanied by a list of 17 democrats in contested districts.

I stand corrected. I deleted that error from my post.

A political map, with names of legislators, their districts, and their terms of office--that is rather innocuous. So the names themselves are not the issue. The key element in question is the bullseye symbol. Is it violent? Is it simply a symbol for "target," which is also a non-violent word meaning focus.

It is not sufficient to prove Loughner interpreted it as violent targeting. You'd have to prove intent behind the symbol to mean violent targeting, which would be impossible without a confession.

For example, I can say, "Take out Monsanto, the most evil corporation in the world," and put a bullseye symbol over the Monsanto logo. But "take out" can have many non-violent meanings. If someone bombs Monsanto, am I liable now? Was it my fault some loony misinterprets my bulleye symbol and the words "take out" to mean, "bomb the hell out of their headquarters"?

Let's not go down that road.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:51 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I am sorry if my 'pure as the driven snow' ideology offends.

The degree of control that must be exercised by the government in order to eliminate inflammatory speech, symbols, suggestions, and even rash and criminal action is repugnant to me.

I should like to point out that the lesson of history is that a controlled media is dangerous, not that an unfettered media is dangerous. The danger of madmen killers and genocidal mob uprisings is small to me compared to the danger of government killers and government mandated genocide.

This is not a pure or clean ideology. It is a dirty and gritty ideology. There are those who would wish to enact such suffocating control as to snuff out the potential for tragedy and violence. There are those who would be willing to die and kill to avoid such control.

If you see either ideology as pure and clean, you are seeing the world through eyes askew.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 7:25 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

This is difficult to watch, but I think, important.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 7:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA

More people in this world have died as a result of a stroke of some tyrants pen than have ever done so due to an armed wacko.

All you do when you remove the little peoples ability to do or incite violence is hand the State a monopoly on it, and history has always shown that is a damned bad idea, cause every disarmament, every stifling of a free media, has caused a slaughter to follow and I would really not like that to happen here.

If you really wanna mitigate those calling for violence, better instead to remove the circumstances which allow their mad rhetoric to gain traction, the atmosphere of force and fear, the social structure which break people, strip away their humanity and empathy by design.

You don't stop an avalanche at the BOTTOM of the mountain, people.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 7:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
A big part of the cause of the Rwanda genocide was incitement and demonization by the media: "They're" going to take over. "They're" going to take your land. Kill now or be killed later.

It fed an atmosphere of mass fear, which led to mass hate, and mass hate led to mass murder. You could see the same in Nazi Germany. People who do not learn from history, who are so steeped in their purer-than-the-driven snow ideology (I'm looking at you, Tony) are fools. In a democracy, there is NO NEED to incite violence. Spittle-spraying right wing blowhards bear some responsibility for this, as done anyone who says "KILL".

Yeah but,

1) It wasn't really the media, not in the sense we call media media, unless one clown on one radio station is considered "the media"

2) They had a long history of being oppressed by the Tutsi....and had indeed been "taken over before" and were infact at war with criminal Tutsi gorillas bent on "Taking over".

3) And when the chopping started, the only media in the world to get the story right were the hutu's...till it was far too late.

There has never been another incident in history that has given me a bigger boner. Millions of dead blacks...and narry a drop of white blood spilled....So, trust me I have studied this upside down and backwards(in the hope of learning the exact cause...and to hopefully spread it to other parts of Africa )....It was not based on unfounded fears seeded by media. It was based on a history of realities that spanned thousand years. Oppression is a horrible act, I have no tears for the million that died they deserved it, they knew better, and now they can never do it again. Don't watch Hotel Rwanda for history. Start with these:

1) "When victims become killers, Colonialism, Nativism, and Rwanda genocide"....Mahmood Mamdani

2) "The Rwandan Crisis"....Gerard something

3) "We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families".....Philip Gourivitch

Trust me you will learn alot....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 7:56 AM

CTS

The Sarah Palin map, I think Beck said something about "2nd Amendment Solutions" and Giffords opponent put out an add saying that people should come shooting with him. People made enough references, and undoubtedly some moron said it, but also, they were getting hundreds of death threats and didn't do anything about it.

Of course I oppose the legislation, but threatening to kill people is already illegal. You don't need new laws to give members of govt. special protections or the right to the govt. to incarcerate its political opponents.

On media, Nazi propaganda had no effect?

What about our propaganda against muslims? No one signed up to go kill some Iraqis and Afghans because the govt. and media cooked up and broadcast a story that they knew had no basis in fact, and demonized the target population?

I get your point that this could become a vehicle for bad legislation, but I also think that Beck and co. have been irresponsible here. Sure, if they hadn't redirected this guy and he hadn't been kicked out of college for being violent and abusive, he might have become a school shooter, but still, this sort of thing shouldn't be encouraged in an organized fashion by large media companies.

Quote:
ETA: Now if someone shoots Mark Dice or a Truther, shows up at Reagan's office to claim a reimbursement for his bullet as promised on his show, I wouldn't holler if someone wants to prosecute Reagan.

Ref back to what Byte said, it's already a crime, instigating violence. Someone committed a crime, but he didn't do it out of nowhere, people were telling him to do it, in one way or another. when speaking to a large audience, someone is a barely literate incoherent lunatic with a gun. You have to consider that. It's an issue of civic responsibility

Quote:
Anthony
The degree of control that must be exercised by the government in order to eliminate inflammatory speech, symbols, suggestions, and even rash and criminal action is repugnant to me.

Agreed, but FOX News could have said to their media personalities "You are encouraging people to kill democrats." Or maybe that's a way you can get republicans elected?

What if someone were to start a show called "This old bomb" or a "Kill the n*ggers hour" The fact is that there is already a tremendous amount of regulation of what the media can say. Hell, you can't even get away with a show like Firefly. I'm not calling for new legislation, just asking if the media and event organizers are partly to blame.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 10:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's an issue of civic responsibility

I agree on this.

I just don't want to see horrifying and sickening speech made into illegal speech. Wrong and illegal are two different things.

Here is some good advice on civic responsibility from Giffords herself, talking about the Palin bullseye map and the need to tone it down. Uncanny and unnerving.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 10:34 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"What if someone were to start a show called "This old bomb" or a "Kill the n*ggers hour" The fact is that there is already a tremendous amount of regulation of what the media can say. Hell, you can't even get away with a show like Firefly. I'm not calling for new legislation, just asking if the media and event organizers are partly to blame."

Hello,

'This Old Bomb' is a show I might watch. 'Kill the niggers hour' is a show I would not watch. In neither case would I suggest action taken to deny either. I do not even like the present level of media control.

Are people who say irresponsible things partly to blame? Of course they are.

But I don't think it's a blame we should rectify with law. 'Fixing' it would be worse than keeping it broken.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
But I don't think it's a blame we should rectify with law. 'Fixing' it would be worse than keeping it broken.

I know it is annoying to see a post that does nothing but agree with you...

But, yep, yep, yep.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 11:59 AM

I'm going to do something rarely seem in RWED.

I concede the point.

It's the emotions of the moment got me to thinking about the wrongness of it all, but you guys make a convincing argument, anything done to fix it would just make it worse.

Watching the video...

Clearly we have a could things going on, one is a very angry constituency who felt they were not represented, which is often the case, and in the case of the healthcare bill, clearly the administration thought it was solving a problem, clearly the opposition saw it as a eugenics bill and I think both sides have very valid points. As a result of the bill more people will have healthcare, but it will make it more expensive for people to have children, and there might be some rationed care.

Things like this create an atmosphere of hostility, and it's not just the rhetoric, but clearly large protests are not the result of what Ms. Palin puts on her website, but real anger. When this goes on long enough, you run the risk.

The second element is you have a lunatic with a criminal record, a history of violence and drug use, some deep political beliefs, and a gun.

One thing that occurs to me so often with these cases is also that someone thought this person was a problem earlier, like the college who kicked him out. Maybe the responsibility of a society starts much earlier, where you notice someone acting violently and have someone talk to them, maybe, like the suicide, there is nothing that could have been done, but on a personal level, maybe there was.

But I can see what you guys are saying, this is political hay that could make for bad policy, and, like a school shooting or anything else, there's a certain tension that builds up, we have to perhaps be more aware of that, and not wait for someone to step in and fix it.

Maybe as a society we need to talk more and yell less.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Maybe as a society we need to talk more and yell less.

Agreed wholeheartedly. And on this board as well.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 12:41 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

This is not the first time the 'free speech' issue has come up. People seem to think that we have some kind of blanket guarantee we can say, print or broadcast anything at all, anything we want, because, after all we have 'free speech' - but it's not true.

Just try posting something on Facebook from your own computer on your own time that your employer finds objectionable. Or yell FIRE ! in a crowded theatre and start a stampede. Or say, or post, or print, something negative about a person - or a company and their product. Try protesting a war you dislike. Or assuming your phone conversations are private. What about the books you take out of the library or buy at the bookstore? Conspiracy to commit a crime is not allowed either.

As a fact, our 'free speech' is extremely constrained.

And anyone arguing from a position that somehow putting restraints on speech is unprecedented and constitutionally forbidden is just plain wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And anyone arguing from a position that somehow putting restraints on speech is unprecedented and constitutionally forbidden is just plain wrong.

I'm pretty sure no one in this thread made that argument.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 1:39 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

CTS

I had a number of quotes from both you and AnthonyT indicating that no matter how inflammatory the rhetoric, it SHOULD be allowed on the grounds of free speech. In fact, there are limits, both as incitement and as threat.

But those limits are being made more appropriate to today's technology.

In our political lives we hold jihadist rhetoric whether from an individual imam or a state as responsible for terror attacks. Regarding Rwanda, the ICC convicted the two leading radio inciters as guilty of genocide. If we are to have some level of consistency, we need to hold other rhetoric to the same standard.

Remember the Nuremberg Files website where abortion providers, their addresses, family members etc were posted? I find that very similar to Palin's poster and the rhetoric of the particular election campaign. The 9th Circuit ruled that these were indeed, some type of threat. While it hasn't made it to the Supreme Court that does seem to be the way decisions are trending.

"Which is what makes Planned Parenthood so tricky. It's a hybrid case, sprouting up somewhere between threats and incitement. In fact if the anti-abortionists are guilty of anything, it's of threatening to be unable to control readily incited third parties. Which is still not quite a threat under the 9th Circuit's test. Judge Kozinski is probably correct in saying that it's unlikely these doctors believed that the creators of the posters and Web site intended to personally harm them. At worst, these abortion foes would merely have been delighted at their murders.

But even if the Planned Parenthood opinion stands on shaky legal ground, it somehow still feels, intuitively, right. Why should you be able to hand a potential killer someone's address and get away with it?

These days shouting "fire" in a crowded theater seems almost sweet. The media can inflame and incite people in ways far more powerful than any Supreme Court could have envisioned, back when the prospect of an angry mob was about as scary as life got. Threats need not be personal if one has followers who will kill on demand. Can anyone in this country still believe that violent threats only happen in personal interactions between private citizens? Sure, the 9th Circuit invented some astonishing new doctrine last week. But is anyone truly sorry they did? Even the ACLU, who never quite sorted out which side of this case they were on, has been remarkably silent. Because even if there's no legal theory with which to suppress it, we all want TheJihadFiles.com suppressed.

The dissenters in Planned Parenthood show an admirable credulity in accepting plain meanings. Believing that words on a wanted poster are mere political advocacy is certainly the best assumption we can make, if protecting vigorous debate is all we are after. But we can no longer afford such credulousness. As the majority in Planned Parenthood observed in the opinion, "By being on 'wanted' type posters, Dr. Gunn, Dr. Patterson and Dr. Britton can no longer participate in the debate." Let's not become so protective of speech or so enslaved to doctrine that we blind ourselves to the intentions of those who put no value at all on life."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 1:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
This is not the first time the 'free speech' issue has come up. People seem to think that we have some kind of blanket guarantee we can say, print or broadcast anything at all, anything we want, because, after all we have 'free speech' - but it's not true.

Just try posting something on Facebook from your own computer on your own time that your employer finds objectionable. Or yell FIRE ! in a crowded theatre and start a stampede. Or say, or post, or print, something negative about a person - or a company and their product. Try protesting a war you dislike. Or assuming your phone conversations are private. What about the books you take out of the library or buy at the bookstore? Conspiracy to commit a crime is not allowed either.

As a fact, our 'free speech' is extremely constrained.

And anyone arguing from a position that somehow putting restraints on speech is unprecedented and constitutionally forbidden is just plain wrong.

Wrong dumbass, your examples are just plain wrong. That they maybe true makes them no less wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 1:48 PM

"In our political lives we hold jihadist rhetoric whether from an individual imam or a state as responsible for terror attacks. Regarding Rwanda, the ICC convicted the two leading radio inciters as guilty of genocide. If we are to have some level of consistency, we need to hold other rhetoric to the same standard."

Well being an American the icc could find me guilty off nothing...if we have consistency? Meaning what exactly? With the way the icc treats others? The way the rest of the world polices themselves? Last I checked I live in a soverign nation protected by a constitution..not a one world government....sorry if you think different...that last bit was aimed at your parents.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 1:55 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Whoa - is Kaneman on a drunken spree or what ?

As I think about it - you notice that when Rap disappears Kaneman shows up ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 1:58 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I had a number of quotes from both you and AnthonyT indicating that no matter how inflammatory the rhetoric, it SHOULD be allowed on the grounds of free speech."

Hello,

Yes. I am of the minority opinion that such dangerous speech should be allowed, on account of 'free speech.'

You won't see my belief in that particular philosophy come across in so shallow a demonstration as holding up the Constitution or the Law. I do not believe the Constitution is a philosophy. Rather, I believe the founding fathers framed the words on that document in an effort to articulate a philosophy. The philosophy exists absent the Constitution, and despite all shackles of law.

I understand absolutely and completely that free speech costs lives. That is why we put fetters on it when we write our laws.

Of those fetters, I advocate only this: If a man tells you that he will kill you, then you are allowed to believe him.

My philosophy is Monstrous. God forbid I should ever be a King.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 2:04 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Yes, but ... even you understand that words have consequences. For example, if someone threatens to kill me I am allowed to believe them and - kill them first? And get away with it?

At some point you believe people bear consequences for what they say. We are only arguing about where.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 2:24 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

If someone threatens to kill you, you are allowed to believe them. This is not alone sufficient for pre-emptive murder. That flavor of self defense requires more than motive. Y

ou could certainly get a restraining order, however, and such might be well advised. You do not want people who intend to murder you within arm's reach.

The speech, however, would not be illegal.

That there are consequences for the things we say is an entirely different thing from making the things we say inherently illegal in and of themselves.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 2:34 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

A restraining order - is a legality. It is a restriction based in law, making threatening speech actionable. The legal understanding is that threats, which are words, are not allowed legally without consequence.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 2:38 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I see where you are coming from.

Yes, it is a legality. It is also a legality which does not limit your freedom of speech. You will not be jailed or silenced for your speech.

The extent of the curb on your freedoms is that if you approach the person you have promised to murder, people will begin responding to you as though you intend to murder them.

So I guess that's the entirety of my legal line on the matter.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 2:45 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Oh, OK. Not that I necessarily agree, but at least we both know (I hope) from which basis we are each starting.

As for disagreeing, one example is this: "It is also a legality which does not limit your freedom of speech." Technically, nothing limits your freedom of speech b/c nothing except outright censorship (which BTW is done all the time) keeps you from saying what you want. A restraining order due to a threat, a sentence of genocide by the ICC, a civil judgment against the Nuremberg group, are all 'after the fact' consequences.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I had a number of quotes from both you and AnthonyT indicating that no matter how inflammatory the rhetoric, it SHOULD be allowed on the grounds of free speech.

That is right. We want free speech. Neither of us argued though, as you alleged, that "putting restraints on speech is UNPRECEDENTED and CONSTITUTIONALLY FORBIDDEN."

I can't speak for Anthony, but when I say free speech should remain free, it is not a constitutional or legal argument; it is a moral one.

That is to say, I believe we should have unrestrained free speech, whether the law agrees with me or not.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If someone threatens to kill you, you are allowed to believe them.

I think though, this instance of speech (direct threat to kill) is very different from the insinuations and "violent" imagery ascribed to Beck and Palin. Not all violent speech is equal.

Direct threats are more like Michael Reagan's speech threatening Mark Dice. Michael Reagan, incidentally, has suffered no legal or other consequences for urging the murder of 9/11 Truthers. Again, it seems that not all violent speech is equal--except this time, the difference is not just in degree, but also who you target.

No matter how violent, apparently it isn't that big a deal if you're targeting a group nobody likes very much (like Truthers). But if you are merely hinting at violence at Congressmen, whoa, watch out!

(I just have to say once more I really can't stand Beck and Palin, and can't believe I am defending them.)

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:32 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
H.L. Mencken.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 5:51 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As I think about it - you notice that when Rap disappears Kaneman shows up ?

Hey Rue, where's Signy?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I had a number of quotes from both you and AnthonyT indicating that no matter how inflammatory the rhetoric, it SHOULD be allowed on the grounds of free speech.
That is right. We want free speech. Neither of us argued though, as you alleged, that "putting restraints on speech is UNPRECEDENTED and CONSTITUTIONALLY FORBIDDEN."

I can't speak for Anthony, but when I say free speech should remain free, it is not a constitutional or legal argument; it is a moral one.

That is to say, I believe we should have unrestrained free speech, whether the law agrees with me or not.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

That's funny you should say that...did you not try to silence my free speech in another thread? I think you did. So what is it free speech or speech CTS likes? Oh here it is:

Oh. My. God. Kane. What you said was beyond despicable. Shut the fuck up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:05 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

It's nothing everyone here hasn't already thought more than a few times

Incidentally, if kane suddenly became unable to communicate due to injury, would CTS be held responsible?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
H.L. Mencken.

Merited repeating.

Silly me thought conceding the point would end the argument, but this is RWED, so of course it would have to START it.

Alas I feel compelled once again to point out that the bill of rights were neither thought up nor granted to us by the constitution but in fact were inherited from Britain as we were a British colony in 1689, a century earlier.

King James signed the document in exchange for his life. It changed slightly on it's adoption into the constitution, a federalist creation to try to delete the bill of rights. When all attempts failed, they created the supreme court for the purpose, figuring they would stack it with federalists. That may have been briefly the case, i dont know but if so, it didn't happen again for a long time. It was the nomination of Samuel Alito that put the fifth federalist on the bench. The bill of rights was then summarily done away with in practice.

Let's hope it still exists somewhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:48 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Quote:
Silly me thought conceding the point would end the argument, but this is RWED, so of course it would have to START it.

Yep, I think that's how it works here. Also, it'll follow you into other threads, unrelated threads even, and be used against you. Good luck!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
That's funny you should say that...did you not try to silence my free speech in another thread?

Nope. "Shut the fuck up" was an expression of my utter disapproval of your speech. It was not meant to be taken literally, and obviously, it was not.

People can tell other people to shut up. That is free speech too.

If I had tried to silence you, I would have tried to get Haken to ban you or called the cops on you. See the difference?

What we are arguing about is legal and material consequences for offensive speech, something you have never suffered as a result of your vile expressions here on RWED.

And cmon, you know full well they are vile.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 6:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Incidentally, if kane suddenly became unable to communicate due to injury, would CTS be held responsible?

Only if I put crosshairs in the O's of "Oh. My. God."

But if Kane were a Truther, then no, no responsibility whatsoever.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 7:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Quote:
Silly me thought conceding the point would end the argument, but this is RWED, so of course it would have to START it.

Yep, I think that's how it works here. Also, it'll follow you into other threads, unrelated threads even, and be used against you. Good luck!

Thank you Happy. For some reason that was the funniest thing I've seen here in a long time. I'm still lauding, it's hard to type,

Oh, its so true too... They follow you into the afterlife...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 8:19 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Hey Rue, where's Signy?

That's asinine, even for you, BDN.

From a mile and a half away, an Oak and a Maple could be mistaken for each other, but not up close, no - only reason you even see similarities is cause you are so far Right of their positions you're off the deep end anyways, so to you they're both Left...

I've argued quite bitterly with both of em, from point blank range, often enough to know damn well the difference, as Siggy is Left-Anarchist and Rue is Left-Socialist, not that this distinction is of any meaning to someone incapable of seeing any point of view but their own anyways.

It does however amuse me that the mere presence of either one riles you up even if they don't actually say anything - tell me, are you nursing a crush, then ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 12:44 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
From a mile and a half away, an Oak and a Maple could be mistaken for each other, but not up close, no - only reason you even see similarities is cause you are so far Right of their positions you're off the deep end anyways, so to you they're both Left...

I've argued quite bitterly with both of em, from point blank range, often enough to know damn well the difference, as Siggy is Left-Anarchist and Rue is Left-Socialist, not that this distinction is of any meaning to someone incapable of seeing any point of view but their own anyways.

Well if Rue can throw out preposterous claims like Auraptor is Kaneman, why can't I? Besides, I find it quite hilarious that both have called me an idiot who knows nothing on several occasions. Yet they seem to defend their personas like caged dogs when this "idiot" mentions they are one and the same. Why do you suppose that is?

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
It does however amuse me that the mere presence of either one riles you up even if they don't actually say anything - tell me, are you nursing a crush, then ?

Perhaps, they do say opposites attract. That could also mean that I might have a little crush on you as well. But it became apparent to me long ago that there is only room in Frem's heart for Frem.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:03 PM