Ugly Incidents, Ugly Politics

[William Thornton]

[Chris]

[Hal Eaton]

Sez William: "Would Timothy's Bill of Rights include the proviso that there is freedom of speech but not speech so offensive that someone will be insulted and react by murdering an innocent person?

"What is most offensive in this entire discussion is how little our freedoms are valued."

Often overlooked in this discussion are the attitudes, motivations, and incentives of those who use "free speech" to inspire calamitous results. If they intended to provoke uprisings that resulted in "unintended consequences," then perhaps the charge could be some lesser degree of culpability, like manslaughter, for instance. Criminality cannot always be obscured by the claim of freedom of speech.

One solution: Don't prosecute such an offender. Since, in this case, the culprit obviously sought to express extreme cfriticism free of retaliation in his own country, just turn him over to those who objected to his product. That would at least have either proved his point, or, if he survived, it would have proved him wrong. (IMO, TIC)

[Mrs Haruo]

"Again, I'm no lawyer, but I believe the creator of the film is partially responsible for the deaths of American citizens in the riots.

I also believe that even if the US doesn't prosecute him he will have to answer to a just God for his hateful behavior."

Amen!

I think it is Judge Judy who says "Beauty may be skin deep, but stupid goes straight to the bone". We can jump and cheer and wave flags and holler about "America being the greatest country in the world" but there are many people around the world who don't agree, and who worship God in different ways. I believe it is much more "Christian" to respect their opinions and cultural beliefs. What we say and do can make a lot more "noise" a lot faster in this digital age. The recent tragedies are an example of why it is wiser to think before pushing the "send" button.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I don't believe that the film should be banned under the law.

But, let's be clear here: the history of Free Speech is the United States is quite complicated. There's not some consistent standard that has prevailed since the days of the Founding Fathers. Any suggestion along those lines is utter nonsense.

Free Speech like Freedom of Religion has never been absolute. And at times, throughout our history, some free speech has been restricted, and more often than not, it has been conservatives, particularly the hyper-patriotic conservative "moralists" (to use a word that Wm likes) that have pushed for free speech restrictions.

The current free speech standard is the imminent lawless action test per Brandenburg v. Ohio. What qualifies or should qualify as an "imminent lawless action" in our 21st century digital age?

That's a conversation that civil people ought to be able. I don't think that posting an offensive YouTube video qualifies. But certainly there are some forms of free speech that deserve restriction and meet this test.

Maybe William you could throw in your views about "freedom" with regard to pornography. Conservatives generally have quite a bit to say on that very very related subject.

[Tim Bonney]

[William Thornton]

[Tim Bonney]

[Mrs Haruo]

"Loose lips sink ships"

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

[Hal Eaton]

Late, again, but I just noticed Big Daddy Weaver's comment from Sept. 17. He sez:

"Maybe William you could throw in your views about "freedom" with regard to pornography. Conservatives generally have quite a bit to say on that very very related subject."

I have just started the process of having a book published, and the following comments are from a chapter therein:

"When pornography rears its ugly head in the form of Playboy magazine, X-rated and R-rated movies, and dirty jokes, preachers rejoice in finding another hot issue for an easy sermon. Acting as if they have never been titillated by such literature, or aroused by such sights, or giggled at those naughty jokes, they lambast the “purveyors of filth” as the emissaries of Satan himself.

"Consider this: There are those who have differing ideas from the prevailing “Judaeo-Christian culture” which spawned the sexual rules by which we supposedly live. Those others obviously believe that sexual fulfillment, by whatever methods they offer for sale, is a worthwhile and fulfilling goal for the human race. The Christian segment of society, impelled by anger, fear, and perhaps a modicum of guilt, responds by designating these differing beliefs as pornography, obscenity, and sin. Yet there remains the principle that these so-called sinners have every right to explore, discuss, promulgate, and make attractive whatever they think is the be-all and end-all of human endeavor. After all, we Christians use exactly the same rights and freedoms to advertise what we believe to be the “Final Truth” on all these matters."

Oops, I forgot to include - - IMO.

[Hal Eaton]

I don't know where else to post this amusing bit of information, but it is within the realm of this thread . . .

This morning, on Fox news, one or another of the brassy-voiced blondes who report the news/comments spoke of the Administrations's delay in calling the Libyan event "terrorist-inspired." She labeled the circumstance as a "cover-up"- - - and used the phrase three times in one sentence.

[Chris]

Fox News Channel does whatever is necessary to make Barack Obama look inept, just as Keith Olbermann did whatever he could to make George W. Bush look inept. Tit for tat, I suppose.

[Stephen Fox]

See my post somewhere on this site, about the exchange between Tom Brokaw and Sean Hannity prime time from Charlotte on Fox a month ago

[Tim Bonney]

[Hal Eaton]

I am fortunate enough (or unfortunate enough) in retirement to keep an eye on Fox News. (I give equal time to CNN, MSNBC, and the three old-time networks.)

Fox's latest ploy: they call up the parents of those most recently killed in the Near East, and draw from them accusations as to how the current administration (and Obama by name) was the cause of their loss.

Missing, for years: Comparative interviews of the parents, wives, and children of the literally tens of thousands of casualties which were the direct result of the the Republican Party leaders' choice to go to war . . .

Added: Fox's claim that Obama either quit the war in Iraq too soon, or that he didn't quit soon enough, depending on which day you watched the proceedings.

I lunch daily with folks who are totally enamored of the Fox view of our world. I am reminded, again and again, of the cartoon which shows a hand disappearing down the toilet bowl, accompanied by the words, "I'm right, I'm right, I'm--glug!"

[Hal Eaton]

'Scuse me for harping on the subject . . .but google up "Fox News Controversies" for a long, long report on the machinations of the organization, its backers, and its methods.

Their obvious influence on the public requires attention by any who are interested in sources of "Truth."

Today's "Poll" on the administration: I've forgotten the exact wording, but Fox conducted a "poll" Which asked each participant to choose one of three positions on the administration's handling of the Libyan event--that the administration was (1) stupid, (2)covered up, or (3) was mistaken.

As Archie Bunker would say, while circling his index finger in the air, "Whoop-te-do!"

[Chris]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[Dave Roberts]