’)Lord knows I can’t stand Michael Savage. The guy is a deranged loser of the highest order that exemplifies just about everything wrong about the right.
But the UK excluding him from being able to travel there because he is controversial is not the kind of behavior a world power like the UK should be engaging in.
Call me a flag-waving American if you must, but I think one of the great things about this country is our tolerance for speech. Even crappy speech, like Michael Savage. Why does this work? If you ban certain types of speech, as the UK, Canada, and Germany do in one form or another, all it does is lend strength to the hatemongers. It tells them and their supporters that their speech is so powerful the government has to specifically restrict it.
Allowing the extremes to speak as we do here in America puts their words into the public sphere for scrutiny, and as bad ideas often do – they lose. The racist movement in America is for the most part dead as a door knob because the government allows them to speak.
Michael Savage is an ass. Nothing he says makes any sense. The UK is a far stronger nation than the words of Savage, why give loons like him any sense of power by banning him for his words?
…a world power
oflike the UK…or
…a world power of the UK’s standing…
“The racist movement in America is for the most part dead as a door knob because the government allows them to speak.”
This is rather simplistic POV don’t you think? It’s mostly dead because others fought and died for the right to speak and also because the racists are being sued out of existence.
“It tells them and their supporters that their speech is so powerful the government has to specifically restrict it.”
Are you sure? I think restricting hate speech is telling them that they’re wrong and should stop talking about people in ways that could have them killed.
And then there’s Hitler. He spoke and people listened.
And one more thing: do you really think the racist are gone; I think they’re organizing.
I say ban the living crap out of them, put them in jail and give the Canadians, Brits and Germans the keys. We know what to do with hate mongers.
Pieces like this don’t help our super secret plan to bring back the Fairness Doctrine you know.
No one –even the UK– is infringing on Weiner-Savage’s speech. He can say any twisted thing that comes out of his withered little brain stem. He just cannot enter the UK because of the belief that he foments violence.
I don’t think our Bill of Rights extends to other countries, but that aside, Britons can certainly tune in to webcasts of Savage’s program if they so desire. No one is keeping him from speaking. But Free Speech does NOT mean that you do not have to deal with the repercussions of your speech.
I actually do wish that we would spend more time in this country emphasizing the RESPONSIBILITY of Free Speech, instead of just intransigently demanding that one has the right to say whatever ugliness we want and no one is allowed to complain about it.
No one –even the UK– is infringing on Weiner-Savage’s speech.
So then they shouldn’t be afraid to let him in the country.
instead of just intransigently demanding that one has the right to say whatever ugliness we want and no one is allowed to complain about it.
Nobody is saying you can’t complain about Savage’s speech – I work for an organization that does just that. But the freedom of speech means the freedom to make even hateful speech.
I’ve recently taken to listening to Savage, largely under the notion if you’re going to criticize someone/thing you really aught to have heard/seen them yourself (I’m looking at you “Angels and Demons” moral critics.).
After the first 40-ish minute commute session I’ve taken him in smaller bursts. I listen until he does any three of the following
- states what is clearly his opinion as if it were a fact
- cites a vague source which he won’t name
- interrupts a caller so he can instead make his own point at length
- praises himself
- contradicts himself
- resorts to name calling and marvels in his own cleverness at doing so
Since that first commute I haven’t listened to him for more than 3 minutes at a time.
canadian bacon: Are you sure? I think restricting hate speech is telling them that they’re wrong and should stop talking about people in ways that could have them killed.
…
I say ban the living crap out of them
Doesn’t work.
The answer to hate speech is more speech, and holding them up to public ridicule.
“The answer to hate speech is more speech, and holding them up to public ridicule.”
That’s not working either, especially since the cornerstone to this notion is public ridicule. It’s a very weak hope.
That’s not working either
Really? Two years ago I ridiculed the idea America would elect a black president, and yet we did. I don’t know how the concept of President Obama and racists on the rise can reconcile, because they don’t. Is racism totally eliminated? Of course not. But is it strong? No. And it keeps getting weaker.
It’s mostly dead because others fought and died for the right to speak and also because the racists are being sued out of existence.
I don’t know of any racists being sued out of existence. Racist organizations, maybe. But actual people? No. These people just lost the war of ideas.
I think restricting hate speech is telling them that they’re wrong and should stop talking about people in ways that could have them killed.
That just gives them power.
And then there’s Hitler. He spoke and people listened.
And he silenced all the opposing voices. If Hitler had to compete in a marketplace of free speech he would have never won.
And one more thing: do you really think the racist are gone; I think they’re organizing.
There are fewer of them this year than last, and next year there will be less.
I say ban the living crap out of them, put them in jail and give the Canadians, Brits and Germans the keys.
And then they’ll just grow. We lock up people we think present an actual danger to society. Locking up a racist for being a racist gives them a power they don’t have.
We know what to do with hate mongers.
Give them more power than they deserve? Sorry, no thanks.
“Since that first commute I haven’t listened to him for more than 3 minutes at a time.”
But millions do.
Uhmm O Dub…FEWER racist this year? Really?
One question OW: Why does your forum have the following statement.
“Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.”
It may take some time to appear or it may not appear at all; is this right? Why moderate at all.
Why limit any expression if all expression is sanctified? It’s a pipe dream and last I heard militias are on the rise. We’ve prosecuted Ernst Zundel and a bunch of others up here and last I checked nobody’s taken away my free speech and almost nobody misses those bigots. It’s a fine balance to be sure but the court of law is much stronger than the court of public opinion.
FEWER racist this year? Really?
Yes.
Why limit any expression if all expression is sanctified?
I am not a government.
We’ve prosecuted Ernst Zundel and a bunch of others up here and last I checked nobody’s taken away my free speech and almost nobody misses those bigots.
And in the process those actions probably have made Zundel some kind of martyr and leader to racists. Contrast that with David Duke, who is free to be as racist as he wants to be and is regarded by almost every American as a hell of a joke.
Oh, I don’t mind this at all. The Savage Weiner and his colleagues yuck it up whenever the UK throws up barriers to some leftist or Arab or Muslim speaker or author, so, fine, let right wingers once again see how cheering on the government to cast a wider net of authority will end up with them being netted too.
“And in the process those actions probably have made Zundel some kind of martyr and leader to racists.”
He already was; that’s the point.
So, then you put a guy in jail for being an asshat? Jails aren’t crowded enough? I want real criminals in jail. Asshats should just walk on the street and be laughed at.
‘Why limit any expression if all expression is sanctified?”
“I am not a government.”
Clever answer, but the question remains; on what moral basis do you retain the privilege to limit free expression? Governments are a collection of people, after all.
“Jails aren’t crowded enough?”"
They are crowded enough, just not always with the right people.
Cleaning up after Savage is not worth it. It is Savage’s choices to be what he is. He likes being paid to incite hate and getting people killed and wounded.
Savage is America’s asshole. No other country is under any obligation to accept him and then have to clean up after him.
Hell I would not allow the shithead in my house nor on my property.
Call me a flag-waving American if you must, but I think one of the great things about this country is our tolerance for speech
Better people than Weiner have been barred from entry to the US because of their speech – John Lennon, Bernadette Devlin McAliskey, various visiting scholars, Nelson Mandella…
I actually do wish that we would spend more time in this country emphasizing the RESPONSIBILITY of Free Speech, instead of just intransigently demanding that one has the right to say whatever ugliness we want and no one is allowed to complain about it.
You know, unless he has a history of inciting violence, I can’t get behind the idea of banning a law-abiding citizen from visiting a country with whom we have a long-standing understanding of trust with when it comes to travelers.
He hasn’t broken any laws, and he’s not affiliated with any terrorist organizations. He’s just your asshole next door neighbor who happens to have a large radio audience.
No, no, no! Keep him OUT of England, for his own good.
I’m sure the English would serenade him with “Oreos”. It’s just the sort of strateryish thing those sneaky Brits would do!
John Lennon, Bernadette Devlin McAliskey, various visiting scholars, Nelson Mandella…
And that was stupid too.
“He hasn’t broken any laws, and he’s not affiliated with any terrorist organizations.”
Make the law.
Yes, and lets outlaw political parties we don’t like either. And political ideologies… what could possibly go wrong?
canadian bacon: It’s a fine balance to be sure but the court of law is much stronger than the court of public opinion.
I disagree. Folks are far more hesitant to do something if it embarrasses them. It’s far easier to face a jury than a bunch of people who are pointing fingers and laughing at you.
canadian bacon: Clever answer, but the question remains; on what moral basis do you retain the privilege to limit free expression?
I have fought for the rights of people I despise to stand on a public street corner and shout at advocate at the top of their lungs for things that I find abhorrent. But I will not let them say one word in my living room.
It’s OW’s blog. He gets to set the rules.
So then they shouldn’t be afraid to let him in the country.
Apples and oranges. They’re not afraid of him, they are merely saying that someone who is prone to hate speech and inciting rhetoric is not welcome. They’ve done nothing to abridge his speech, just given him a consequence of said speech. If you can’t stand the consequences, don’t say the words.
But the freedom of speech means the freedom to make even hateful speech.
But it doesn’t mean freedom FROM CONSEQUENCES. Again, no one has taken Weiner’s right to say whatever he wants away.
He’s just your asshole next door neighbor who happens to have a large radio audience.
The key part of that is “large radio audience”. Those are *public* airwaves and there should be some responsibility for not polluting the airwaves with hate speech and bigotry. There are assholes all over the world. And you are free to exercise your inner asshole and say whatever you want. But you do not have the inalienable right to a national platform (international now, with webcasts), especially with no consequences.
This is a point where Oliver is wrong. Canada and cie. don’t jail hate speakers, they revoke their radio/other media licence. There’s a lot of competition to get these licences, so they go to the companies who actually respect the law. They say what they want at home, at work, on the street, etc. but working in the mass-media is a privilege and comes with extra rules. One station losing its license happened two-three years ago in Canada, after years of calls for criminal acts from the star host, it’s not as if one had to watch every word one says.
Is the US free when it’s perfectly legal for one to say you deserve to be hurt because your opinion isn’t the ONE TRUE opinion? Calling for violence against opponents is quite oppressive in my book.
Actually my slap at Canada was over the dumb trial they had for Mark Steyn.
I also am not arguing savage has a right to a radio show. What I think he has a right to is his stupid opinions and should be able to travel the world with said idiotic opinions.
“It’s OW’s blog. He gets to set the rules.”
I get it.
That’s might point; we vote our government in, it’s my/our government and we get to set the rules. Same logic, same principle.
“But I will not let them say one word in my living room.”
How is that different that your country? Do your morals end at your front door?
“I disagree. Folks are far more hesitant to do something if it embarrasses them.”
Maybe if they have a stain on their shirt or something, but racists … come on your pulling my leg?
Yes, and lets outlaw political parties we don’t like either. And political ideologies…
We have three viable political parties here AND hate speech laws. It’s a bit of a rhetorical stretch to go down that road.
How many people are on our terrorist watch list for similar things, I wonder?
MatanteDodo: Speech intended to incite violence or unlawful behavior is not Constitutionally protected. Which means there can be, and I presume there are in most states, laws that restrict such speech. That said, it’s probably unlikely that someone would be prosecuted without actually having incited a crime.
Speaking of the Constitution, that seems to be what some commenters here are forgetting when they advocate for the creation of laws against hate speech. There are probably few parts of the Constitution that would be harder to alter than the First Amendment. We’d be better off debating the pros and cons of sending a man to Alpha Centuri, since that’s more likely to happen before we change the First Amendment.
One could argue that the Supreme Court could decide to interpret hate speech as being unprotected. However freedom of expression has already been explored pretty thoroughly by the courts, including cases that involved hate speech. It seems unlikely that any Supreme Court would overturn these precedents.
One other point is that this country has used a broad interpretation of the human right to freedom of expression since its founding. Though at times our government has lapsed into censorship, there’s no evidence that I’m aware of to indicate that our democracy is any weaker for having such an interpretation.
Personally, if having to constantly rebut the ravings of Michael Savage is the price for knowing that my government won’t arbitrarily label something I say as hate speech and censor me, then I consider that more than a fair deal.
better, being a nation with many excellent humorists (Cleese, Palin, Idle, and probaly some blokes who aren’t Pythons, but just wanted a good crack at a Yank Bigot. The UK has no end of great political sairists: the best ammunition against a Savage. They could’ve destroyed him instead of shutting him up. That would’ve been better.)
I think, being a bit of a throwback, that the best defense against his breed of idiocy–is knowledge. The threat of the knowledgeable, in a place where he was out of his element, stripping him to comedic shreds, would’ve been far better. Therefore, when his show resumes–
He ought be satirized, after the bardic fashion, with prejudice and meanness and humor. If I find a good thing to snark on myself, I promise to snark away regarding him.
Oliver, I was just reading an old Making Light post where the comments referenced the Volokh Conspiracy, which referenced Kleindienst v. Mandel, where SCOTUS ruled that the US can bar entry to foreigners for speech that would have been protected free speech by a citizen.
Michael Savage is banned from England! Using its same freedom-hating standards, Britain should now ban from its shores that “hate-fostering extremist” known as Jesus – and of course also ban the Queen since she is officially the “Defender of the Faith” that Jesus started!
ArC, that’s a pretty cool case.
It’s worth noting though that the majority opinion boiled down to the fact that, based on long standing precedent, Congress can impose arbitrary rules for allowing entry to the country without much fear of judicial review.
So they said that the government could, but not whether they should. (Actually, reading between the lines, the majority doesn’t seem to agree that Mandel ought to have been denied the visa.)
That’s might point; we vote our government in, it’s my/our government and we get to set the rules. Same logic, same principle.
. I’m just arguing that they don’t make any sense. I love the UK but I find much of their laws around speech ass backwards (the libel laws are ridiculous and beginning to cause international problems). I’m fully aware that my perspective about this is skewed because I’m an American and our policy on free speech is about as unambigous as it gets, and probably even among Americans I’m something of a free speech zealot.
I’m not arguing whether the UK and other nations are allowed to have these laws. Clearly they are (not that the UK needs my approval on these things
There is a fine line between political speech and hate speech legislation. Perhaps this is a peculiarly American way to look at this issue but as much as I’ll denigrate and degrade a racist, I’ll similarly defend to the hilt his or her right to make that kind of speech. Will I allow it on my site? Of course not, but as I said I’m a private citizen or could be a private corporation. My issue here is with a government making these distinctions. For an extreme example: The American Nazi party is clearly an unAmerican gang of the worst kind of knuckle dragging morons that insult humanity. But they’ve got a right to have and voice their reprehensible views. In my view, a government demonstrates fear when they seek to ban such views. It gives the fringe nuts a sense of legitimacy when a government has to go so far as to eradicate their speech. If the government leaves it alone it has to compete in the marketplace of ideas. And it fails because it is weak.
I also should make clear that I vehemently disagree with the American examples cited above of our government erring versus Free Speech. It isn’t policy that has much ambiguity to it. Lincoln was arguably our greatest President but his curbs on free speech are a black mark on him. Ditto for John Adams and FDR.
I’m not religious, not big on philosophy, and often mind-numbingly conflicted on my political views (ask some of my most loyal readers about my views on atheism or the death penalty). But for me this is about the only sacred text there is:
“There is a fine line between political speech and hate speech legislation.”
I agree with that … but I believe that it’s a line worth walking and that it can be done with some profound success. I don’t think hate speech legislation excludes the freedom of speech; such legislation would shift the burden of proof on to the hater. That is all.
I certainly respect your beliefs that you stated but in my sad little world there are no sacred texts, anywhere in the world. People make the world and it’s changing all of the time.
There are nice poems though.
I am going to completely and utterly destroy any credibility Oliver’s position has here with one simple, decisive statement:
He’s absolutely right on this one.
There. I’ve unreservedly endorsed his statement, which means that a few of the regulars will have to do all they can to refute it.
Others have argued from principle. I’ll toss in another reason: pragmatism.
According to asshat Strowbridge, I’m an expert on “hate groups” like the Klan. I will say that I do have a passing familiarity with their ideology and methods; I belong to the ethnic group that they claim to champion, and I resent their claiming any sort of right to act on my behalf. So, in defense, I’ve studied them a bit.
These groups do their best work in secret. The most effective recruiters for these groups operate quietly — small gatherings in dark corners of bars, anonymous internet message boards, and the like.
The public rallies and gatherings are actually harmful to them, long-term. For one, it gives everyone a chance to publicly express their disgust with them. For another, it gives us a chance to identify them. The only reason they do it is to fuel their martyr/persecution complex.
The best answer to them is exposure. It’s to let them speak freely and confirm just what assholes they are.
I always fantasized about having a neo-Nazi march nearby. I’d try to organize a counter-protest. We’d make it a carnival. “Pin the mustache on the Fuhrer” contests. Hitler pinatas. a Charlie Chaplin movie festival. Spike Jones’ “Der Fuehrer’s Face” blaring. And so on.
Then, at their parade, a mass mooning.
Their weakest point is their utter seriousness. They want to be seen as some great threat. What they can’t stand is to be laughed at, and I would get everyone I could to get together and laugh at them.
You know what this banning of Savage is? A huge boost for his career. I don’t even have to tune him in (and I don’t — the few times I’ve heard him, he’s bored me to tears) to predict it. Praise for Churchill, followed by complaints about how far England has fallen. Talk of “Londonistan” and how England has surrendered to the Islamists. Denunciations of liberals and “political correctness” and “hate speech laws” and whatnot.
Alan Dershowitz said it perfectly: the best antidote to bad speech is more speech. Shutting up speakers you don’t like is the worst thing you can do to them.
J.
Alan Dershowitz is a sadistic torture advocate.
Beyond actively encouraging torture, Dershowitz’s biggest claim to fame is getting O. J. Simpsonoff.
Now Alan Dershowitz is defending war criminals.
That a war criminal advocate like right winger “Jay Tea” would offer up a torture advocate like Alan Dershowitz as a defense of free speech is dizzying.
“Jay Tea” than goes on to cite the right wing extremist “Klan” works in “secret,” which is perversely ahistorical. While part of the Klan was certainly “secret,” especially now, it didn’t prevent the Klan from achieving remarkable power during the 1930’s.
The “secret” part of the Klan was in part meant as a way to terrorize, Kristallnacht style.
That a terrorist organization achieved such prominent political power in America should be a warning that America isn’t immune to succumbing to a violent right wing extremist movement.
While “Jay Tea” might have “always fantasized about having a neo-Nazi march nearby”, I’d frankly be delighted if they never had enough members to “march” anywhere.
I was in Germany just after the Rwanda genocide. I watched German news reports* of the Rwandan massacres with German TV hosts speaking German (which I didn’t understand a word of which just added an extra chilling layer to the images). Traveling companions I was with went to see the movie Schindler’s List which was showing in German while we were in Germany and reported that it was a very chilling experience.
“Free speech” precipitated the massacres in Germany and in Rwanda.
Rwanda talk radio extremists triggered the Rwandan bloodbath.
“Cut down the tall trees” Rwanda radio hosts were reported to have said as a trigger code to precipitate the massacres.
Liberals love free speech and right wingers use liberal’s love of free speech to poison discourse on an industrial scale.
Speaking as an independent with a conservative streak:
Words can kill.
Liberals forget that sometimes. Right wingers don’t.
Right winger Glenn Beck on terror suspects: “shoot them all in the head” … “kill them”
Suspects. Not people convicted of crimes. Suspects.
The “marketplace of ideas” has rewarded that hate speech and it’s flourished.
The current crop of right wing extremists control, what, about 90% of talk radio? Right wingers have the proto-fascist FOX tv network whose extremely popular hosts regularly advocate violence.
Usually the Fox hosts reserve their advocacy of violence to their radio shows like FOX thug Bill O’Reilly did when he encouraged a terrorist attack on an American city.
Lately when I occasional listen to some of the right wing radio talkers or tv hosts there are often times when their right wing rhetoric sounds like a code to “cut down the tall trees.”
I take that deadly seriously. So do the Brits.
Britain endured the terrorism Blitzs (plural) with extraordinary dignity, courage, resilience, and honor. Bitzs that were the direct results of “just” words and “just” “free speech.”
A sovereign nation has the right to refuse entry for whatever reason they want.
That the sovereign nation of Britain would prevent entry to a radio screamer who edges closer and closer to screaming on NATIONAL radio: ‘cut down the tall trees,’ well, I certainly don’t begrudge the Brits their sovereign right to exclude entry of such a person.
And here in America, I wish the left would wake up and recognize that the right wingers advocating violence on radio and television makes falsely screaming “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater trivial in comparison.
That the left thinks “more speech” is a remedy for right wing hate speech when the right wingers control 90% of talk radio is extraordinarily naive. At best.
Right wingers advocating for violence on a public street corner is one thing.
Right wingers advocating violence broadcast on public airwaves is another.
Advocating crimes, inciting riots, inciting violence.
All done with speech.
Words have consequences.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - –
The First Amendment is my favorite Amendment and I’m not here advocating for laws against hate speech. But the arguments for such laws are increasingly persuasive. And those arguing against such laws haven’t been helping themselves by spewing venomous hatred tinged with the advocacy of violence on public airwaves.
History supports the Brits, and especially the Germans, concerns about “speech.”
* I have memories of Rwandan bodies floating fast down a stream/river that was colored reddish/greyish/brown. I don’t recall ever seeing those images since.
Not to be macabre but I googled a bit thinking that it would be easy to find such a stark video and was surprised I couldn’t find either video or even images. Does anyone else remember seeing video like that?
In 1998 Clinton is noted to have said: “Today the images of all that haunt us all: the dead choking the Kigara River, floating to Lake Victoria. In their fate, we are reminded of the capacity for people everywhere — not just in Rwanda, and certainly not just in Africa — but the capacity for people everywhere to slip into pure evil. We cannot abolish that capacity, but we must never accept it. And we know it can be overcome.”
“[T]hose arguing against such [hate speech] lawS” includes a VERY broad spectrum of people.
Some of the fiercest opponents of hate speech laws have been on the left. Though that might change if they start feeling like they are targets of violence.
I’m not aware of any on the left advocating “violence on public airwaves”.
And many right wingers don’t advocate “violence on public airwaves” either.
The sentence: “those arguing against such laws haven’t been helping themselves by spewing venomous hatred tinged with the advocacy of violence on public airwaves” wasn’t meant to imply that everyone arguing against hate speech laws are using hate speech or advocating violence.
Feel free to lead by example, Newsy, with your cries for shutting down provacative speech — and shut the fuck up.
Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t properly read your diatribes. You advocate for free speech only for yourself and those who agree with you. Everyone else will be silenced.
Oh, and nice straw man. Nobody says England didn’t have the right to ban Savage. The argument is whether they ought to.
Congratulations on taking the side of the book-burners. And your contempt for the average person is apparent — you think that enough of them can be swayed to commit atrocities based on the words of a few nutjobs, and you don’t think that reasonable people can see through and expose their lies and fallacies. Ain’t the proletariat fortunate that people like you — their intellectual and moral betters — to protect them from such bad ideas?
J.
Oh, and Oliver, just to make you feel a bit better, I will quibble with you on one point: you called Savage a “loser.” While I agree with casting epithets at him in general, a quick perusal of his current career and financial status would have to indicate he’s actually pretty successful.
I’d rather he wasn’t doing so well, but he is.
J.
The fact that vicious hate-monger Michael Savage is commercially successful shows that the “marketplace for ideas” is rewarding that “speech.”
It’s not so much “free-speech” as it is “profitable” “commercial speech.”
Anyone who thinks that radio and tv speech is “free” hasn’t been paying attention.
So, obviously, we NEED the government to protect us!
A useful principle to keep in mind when the balance of power shifts back to the other end of the spectrum…
Which will be the first to be shut down? MSNBC? Air America? (Well, that one’s been on life support and stolen money for years now…) The New York Times? (Never mind. They’re already committing suicide; no need to assist.) Liberal blogs like this one? Hell, your own site, Newsy, ought to be banned purely on its ongoing assault on aesthetics, not to mention sanity…
Yes, let’s get the government involved in deciding who can exercise which Constitutional rights. After all, isn’t that the essence of the Bill of Rights — “these are the rights granted to the people by the government?” And if something is given by the government, it can be taken away…
Good lord, and you dare to call others hate-mongering fascists, you censor-happy little twit.
J.
“Jay Tea” asserts: “you think that enough of them can be swayed to commit atrocities based on the words of a few nutjobs, and you don’t think that reasonable people can see through and expose their lies and fallacies.”
While I was in Germany I had the privilege of kicking back some beers with German police officers several different times.
All of them agreed that a “few nutjobs” could sway an entire nation “to commit atrocities” through “words” and that even “reasonable people” can sometimes fail to “see through and expose their lies and fallacies“.
It was impolitic of me to have been the one to broach such a sensitive subject but I came away with tremendous respect for the job German police officers do, especially considering some of the unique challenges there jobs entail when faced with the very real threat of violent right wing extremists.
The Rwandan massacre was provoked by a very small number of nutjobs, primarily talk radio nutjobs, constantly stoking anger and resentment until it reached a trigger point.
The American right wing terrorist Jim Adkisson was provoked by right wing extremists to kill Christian liberals.
Nutjobs talking to nutjobs can have deadly consequences.
Right now right wingers are buying up ammo so fast that ammo has become scarce in some places. Murdoch’s FOX fascists are stoking anger and resentment 24/7 on TV AND radio AND print.
Right winger “Jay Tea” should re-read some of his hateful, profanity laced posts advocating for war crimes and reconsider his genocidal employer Norman Podhoretz advocating that Britain should have threatened to “bomb the Iranians into smithereens” in light of his new derision of a “few nutjobs” using “words” to advocate the commission of “atrocities“.
There’s a foul wind blowing in. It will probably pass. But it should be taken deadly serious nonetheless.
Formatting, oops, sorry.
“Jay Tea” is arguing with the voices in his head again.
“Jay Tea”, buy one of those little pill boxes with the dates on them and keep your meds in that.
That way if you start acting crazy it’s easy to figure out how many days you’ve missed taking your meds.
And remember, my support for nationalized health care includes your psychiatric treatment.
Voluntary of course, unless you become a threat to yourself or other people.
I wouldn’t want to be accused of forcing you to become sane through the appropriate and judicious use of prescribed medication.
You have the right to stay as crazy as you want.
But, again, only as long as you don’t become a threat to yourself or other other people.
Of all the things you should apologize for, Newsy, “formatting” is the least of your sins.
It’s educational how you always link your comments about Mr. Podheretz not to his own words, but to Glenn Greenwald’s (or whatever name he’s using today) analysis of them. You want others to defer to your judgment of what Podheretz said, and even that you’ve subcontracted out to the King of the Sockpuppets. Thirdhand opinion, from two proven nincompoops, when you could just link straight to the article?
Oh, and here’s a smidgen of reality that has so far evaded you: America ain’t Rwanda. It ain’t Germany, either. America is the home of the Constitution, which has been described as “institutionalized revolution.”
“Shutting up the crazies” is a good idea — as long as you have absolute faith in who is deciding who the crazies that need shutting up are. Since you brought up the Nazis, fine — shutting up Hitler really worked out well in the 20’s, didn’t it? And once he got in power, he REALLY “shut up the crazies” who didn’t go along with him.
It’s the insecure ones who are always the loudest to demand that the government champion their side and crush their opponents. And that’s what it all boils down for you, Newsy — you’re just that insecure in your own beliefs and your fellow Americans.
Why do you hate and fear and distrust the American people so much, Newsy? Why do you NEED the government to come along and pat you on the head and say “yes, little Newsy, you’re right, they’re bad, and we’re going to shut them up and keep them from threatening your clean, blank little brain with their icky thoughts and ideas?”
J.
Right winger “Jay Tea” is mangling the 10th Amendment. Again.
Amendment X (verbatim):
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
“Jay Tea”, by any chance are any of the voices in your head that keep misstating the Constitution and it’s Amendments named Bybee, Yoo, Gonzales, or Cheney?
None of them apparently ever read the Constitution, so you really shouldn’t be listening to them.
————-
Though for that matter, did anyone in the Republican Bush administration read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?
Well, perhaps they read the Constitution in order to evade it, so I suppose that would count.
Stand back, everyone! Newsy’s bringing out his big guns — THE STRAW MEN!!!!! Careful, splinters can be nastier than moose bites!
My description of the Constitution was sarcastic, attempting to portray how you apparently see it. I know the 10th Amendment by heart — it and the 2nd are the “enforcement arms” that are intended to keep the federal government from getting too tyrannical. They are the guarantors of all other rights.
That aspect of the Constitution — that the rights in it are NOT granted by the government, but inherent in humanity — is what sets it so far above so many other governing documents.
But back to the point (after suitably flaying and setting fire to Newsy’s straw men): it is fundamentally STUPID to use the power of government banning to curtail those who say things you don’t like. And “fundamentally STUPID” is too kind a term to use for someone like Newsy.
J.
Right winger “Jay Tea” is pulling the classic right wing trick of citing the Constitution as an authority and then besmirching the American government.
To right wingers the two are different entities when it’s convenient. It’s easier for the right wing to attack the “government” when they can falsely disassociate the “government” from the Constitution.
The point is that they are one and the same and are controlled by, we, the people. The government is US.
And when right wingers attack the American “government” they are attacking both US And the Constitution.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“We the People“ is actually highlighted in the original.
No matter how badly or how often right wingers mangle and misquote the Constitution and misquote the Bill of Rights, even while they besmirch our American government of “We the People“, repetition doesn’t make their false assertions suddenly true.
Perhaps one of the most ironic outcomes of a Democratic Presidency is that suddenly the right wingers who repeatedly shredded the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to support the monarchical powers asserted by a Republican President, suddenly rediscover the reason that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were created.
Though clearly “Jay Tea” is already fantasizing about the day when the right wing is back in power so that he can stop pretending to be a supporter of the Constitution and the right wing can start shredding the Bill of Rights all over again.
It’s been a disturbing trend of Republicans for at least 40 years now: as soon as they are in power the first thing they do is shred the Constitution and burn the Bill of Rights.
This last time around they even created a special 4th “Cheney” branch.
Very creepy.
“I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
On the other hand:
“The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
“The racist movement in America is for the most part dead as a door knob”
I’ve been saying that my whole life. What made you just realize it? And why must you assign that motive to so many people that you disagree with if you yourself admit it’s dead.
Honest quesiton.
“Jay Tea” : “I know the 10th Amendment by heart”
And yet here and in other posts right winger “Jay Tea” is still misquoting and mangling his ‘favorite’ Amendment.
Classic right wingers: When they can’t outright ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, warp and misstate it so it doesn’t intrude on their unlawful activities.
Republican Bush’s “principal deputy director of national intelligence” Michael Hayden mangled the 4th Amendment and subsequently was rewarded by becoming the CIA Director.
Republican Bush’s Attorney General Alberto Gonzales deleted the Constitutional right of Habeas Corpus amongst other Amendments.
And lets not even get started on Cheney’s unlawful “4th Branch” or Bush’s “unitary executive” travesties.
Canada sounds like a scary place. Seriously, you can get thrown in jail for calling people names and stuff there????
Wow.
What a joke of a nation.
It’s worse than that, you. In Canada, a guy was nearly thrown in jail for PUBLISHING CARTOONS.
Swear to god.
And now Newsy wants the government to go after some guy because HE SAYS MEAN THINGS.
This is the same Newsy who argues that the government IS the people. I wonder if he made that same argument back before the last election?
J.
“The racist movement in America is for the most part dead as a door knob”
I’ve been saying that my whole life. What made you just realize it? And why must you assign that motive to so many people that you disagree with if you yourself admit it’s dead.
Honest quesiton.
Good question, yo mama. And why does no one here inform Southern Strategy Strowbridge of this revelation?
Oh, I don’t mind this at all. The Savage Weiner and his colleagues yuck it up whenever the UK throws up barriers to some leftist or Arab or Muslim speaker or author, so, fine, let right wingers once again see how cheering on the government to cast a wider net of authority will end up with them being netted too.
I’m with El Cid. Anything that causes that asshole discomfort is alright with me.
Racism as a political movement might be dead. That does not mean that racist practices and attitudes don’t exist in many of our institutions, private and public. The idea, for example, that someone may not be given a call-back for a job interview based solely on how ethnic his name sounds should be an anathema to any American.
Southern Quaker…..
And yet our president considers skin tone and gender to be a qualification for supreme court judge.
Irony.
Republican Nixon used the racist “southern strategy”.
Republican Reagan used the racist “southern strategy”.
Republican Bush 1 used the racist “southern strategy”.
Republican Bush 2 used the racist “southern strategy”.
Republican McCain was definitely hurt because his right wing allies repeatedly used the racist “southern strategy”.
McCain might be able to ’say’ he didn’t personally “use” the racist “southern strategy,” but he sure didn’t seem to be able to find his voice when his allies used the racist “southern strategy” to rile up the Republican base.
McCain lost a LOT of Independent and moderate Republicans because of repeatedly taking the lowest of the low roads.
But ya’all right wingers are welcome to deny reality right into the Goposaur’s extinction as a Party if ya’all feel compelled to.
I’m not saying that all Republicans are racist or even that ya’all right wingers are racist. It’s just the other 80% of the Party, not you, no, never you.
And, of course, being African-American didn’t have anything to do with Clarence Thomas’ appointment to succeed Thurgood Marshall?
Jay Tea said “These groups do their best work in secret. The most effective recruiters for these groups operate quietly — small gatherings in dark corners of bars, anonymous internet message boards, and the like.”
Irresponsible free speech doesn’t eliminate any secrecy.
“While “Jay Tea” might have “always fantasized about having a neo-Nazi march nearby”, I’d frankly be delighted if they never had enough members to “march” anywhere.”
Perfect.
It’s quite a privileged position to fantasize about a hate group’s rally when you’re not its target. What a fool.
And no Canada isn’t a scary place, but ignorance of other people’s cultures surely is scary.
Jay Tea “It’s worse than that, you. In Canada, a guy was nearly thrown in jail for PUBLISHING CARTOONS.”
You’re an idiot. Even your crappy thinking wouldn’t be censored here. Take comfort. Clown.
During the 2008 election my MOTHER was forwarded a LOT of the Republican’s racist e-mail attacks on Obama.
She was forwarded those racist e-mails by her Republicans friends.
It did NOT help McCain and in fact lost a LOT of potential moderate and Independent votes.
Mom learned more about many of her Republican friends during the 2008 election than she was comfortable with.
So, while it’s great if ya’all claiming that “The racist movement in America is for the most part dead as a door knob” don’t know right wingers and Republicans that are racists, I assure you that the vast majority of Republicans I know ARE racist.
Race is often the PRINCIPLE reason they vote Republican.
Hell, I’m related to some of those racist right wingers.
So don’t even try to suggest I don’t know what I’m talking about.
yo mama “Canada sounds like a scary place. Seriously, you can get thrown in jail for calling people names and stuff there????
Wow.
What a joke of a nation.”
Yeah mama, our jails are full of political dissidents. No really. And we live in igloos. Get out much?
Jay Tea “It’s worse than that, you. In Canada, a guy was nearly thrown in jail for PUBLISHING CARTOONS.”
You’re an idiot. Even your crappy thinking wouldn’t be censored here. Take comfort. Clown.
Google up “Ezra Levant.” He had the nerve to publish the infamous Mohammed cartoons, and got hauled before your little “Human Rights” Star Chamber. It was only because he was smart enough to videotape and post on the internet his hearing that he wasn’t slapped down and legally sanctioned FOR PUBLISHING CARTOONS.
J.
Jay Tea, your problem is that you’re simply unable to absorb information that conflicts with your ill-informed opinions and grapple with them. We don’t care that you agree with Oliver. The fact that you can’t rationally engage “News Reference” is a testimony to your intellectual shortcomings– shortcomings that, unfortunately, have been nurtured and encouraged by your association with the braindead ideological shite that is the Republican party.
That and, like many moronic nuveau-riche, socially insecure right-wingers who’ve internalized the bad aspects of their gutter ideology and craven rhetoric from their mind-addled leaders, you associate social worth with monetary wealth. Savage is still a loser. Merely a rich loser.
I assure you that the vast majority of Republicans I know ARE racist.
Race is often the PRINCIPLE reason they vote Republican.
Oh just shut the hell up already.
Newsy has officially morphed into a freaking cartoon character.
Jay Tea: “I always fantasized about having a neo-Nazi march nearby. I’d try to organize a counter-protest. We’d make it a carnival.”
And don’t forget to put flowers in your hair next time you’re in San Fran.
yo mama,
non-sequitur much?
Google up “Ezra Levant.” He had the nerve to publish the infamous Mohammed cartoons, and got hauled before your little “Human Rights” Star Chamber. It was only because he was smart enough to videotape and post on the internet his hearing that he wasn’t slapped down and legally sanctioned FOR PUBLISHING CARTOONS.
So lemme get this straight. U.S. soldiers waterboard people, and it’s living the American Dream. Some jackass gets questioned for an admittedly silly charge, and it’s the end of democracy as we know it? Gotcha.
Jay (Tea), why do you hate America so much? If you don’t like it, you can move back to Dubai.
“Free speech” precipitated the massacres in Germany and in Rwanda.
In neither case was it true free speech. As I noted above, freedom of speech is about the free exchange of ideas, no matter how stupid. Can free speech be irresponsible and incite violence? Yes, and in many cases it then becomes a crime. But it shouldn’t be the role of a government to decide what speech is approved. That is what happened in Nazi Germany and what has happened in other repressive regimes.
Is Canada one of those regimes? No. But the action they recently took against idiot Mark Steyn was not the sort of thing a serious democratic nation like Canada should be engaged in, I believe. A far better approach is to just point out how people like Steyn are stupid and allow them and their ideas to be discredited, without the boot of the government.
As to the people trying to make hay out of me saying racists are on the decline, I’ve said so for a while. That’s part of why I keep pointing out that the right and the GOP in particular are in the past by their repeated strategy centered around stoking the fires of racism.
Jay Tea: “… infamous Mohammed cartoons …” They weren’t infamous, they were inflammatory and insulting to millions and millions of people. They were also politically motivated to marginalize and scapegoat a group of people who were made vulnerable by some heinous acts perpetrated by terrorists who use their religion as a justification of their hatred of others. Sorry, but we don’t burn Ladas in the public square, or build Liberty Trees out of plastic leaves and hot air. The human Rights Stars are not perfect either, I’ll give you that, but at least they’re trying.
Candadian Bacon…..
Does or does not Canada have some sort of human rights commission that can/has charged people with crimes for stating unpopular and/or offensive views? If so, that is scary. That is serious totalitarian bs right there. And we here in the US would never stand for such crap. Strangely, I’m with OW on this.
You sound exactly like the western european bureau-weenies that that make stupid laws just for the sake of making stupid laws.
The public hates you.
I have to say that as a non-American, the one area where the US is truly exemplary is free speech. In countries like Canada and the Netherlands you can be put on trial for criticizing Islam, in countries like Germany denying the Holocasut is illegal, in Australia certain cartoon porn = child porn, in Norway sexual ageplay, despite only involving adults, can still be considered child porn.
In the US by contrast, even flag burning is legal. Yep, despite the US being so hyper-patriotic, defacing the most important symbol of the nation is an act of protected speech. You don’t get prosecuted for hate speech for criticizing a religion and its adherents, you can be as wrong about the Holocaust as you want without being charged with a crime, and cartoon characters and adults dressing up does not constitute child porn. The US does a lot of things wrong, but sometimes you should also take time to recognize what it does right. Good job Oliver!
BTW, Savage is full of shit, but no one should be denied entry into a country for expressing opinions, however distasteful they may be. If he was making death threats that could fairly be called criminal speech, so-called hate speech laws on the other hand have no place in free countries.
yo said “That is serious totalitarian bs right there. And we here in the US would never stand for such crap.”
Oh right, you better invade then and show us how to be a real democracy. IRS, CIA, Homeland Security, Slavery, NSA, phone tapping and all those other bastions of free speech institutions.
You’re batting 100.
Please show us how.
Human Right Commissions:
scary shit those human rights are. Learn something, would you … please.
cb:
THEY WERE FREAKING CARTOONS. DRAWINGS. INK ON PAPER.
You wanna know how to handle these things? Look at Israel.
Iran’s government sponsored a contest for the best anti-Semitic cartoons. Israel’s government got word of it, and had their own contest for the same thing. Their entries were BETTER.
The message to Iran: “We’re better than you at EVERYTHING, even at mocking us!”
If a group of people has a problem with a fucking CARTOON, than they got bigger issues than the cartoon. And note that the Canadian reaction might have been inspired by “respect,” it was more motivated by fear — the riots those cartoons triggered killed a lot of people.
Look up “heckler’s veto,” you hoser.
J.
I’ll say it again; we’re not perfect. And I’m not a hoser, I’m a western european bureau-weenie. Get it right.
Yes canadian bacon.
And unfortunately yours throws people in jail for cartoons.
And that is awful. And it shouldn’t be called an Human Rights Commission. HRC’s typically don’t charge people with crimes for publishing cartoons.
When did the totalitarian, pc nutcases take over Canada? It was such a nice place.
“When did the totalitarian, pc nutcases take over Canada?”
Just recently. Please help. SOS.
“Now Savage is suing the British government for defamation.”
Typical. It’s perfectly okay for him to defame just about anyone in his eyeline, but if someone calls him on it, he goes to WATB mode.
SDM: “But I will not let them say one word in my living room.”
canadina bacon: How is that different that your country? Do your morals end at your front door?
No. But other’s rights do. Are you really going to argue that I have to set up a Hyde Park Corner next to my sofa?
.
Actually, my first reaction to OW’s piece was to agree with him. That the UK shouldn’t block Savage from visiting. But after thinking about Nicole Bell’s comments and my own “but I don’t have to let them into my house” I realize that I actually do disagree.
The UK isn’t stopping Savage from speaking. His radio show is streamed on the web, his writings are available online so unless the UK is blocking internet access they aren’t stopping him from speaking and expressing himself. The UK is just saying “we don’t have to let you into our house to do it”.
SDM …
My point is this; a person can do what ever he wants in her living room, but the public space should be a moderated space to protect everybody’s rights, not just the biggest mouth with the most money, etc. We elect our morals and to the extent that hate speech often leads to violence, usually against the weaker than, then give them a fair trial and if they fail to make their case, put them in jail. I don’t see why that’s so terrible. Freedom of speech is a right … but also a responsibility. I’d rather live in moderation with limits than limitless immoderation. It’s more fun.
Look whatever. If they’re going to have stupid totalitarian laws like this, please apply them equally and not selectively. Cartoons from Denmark or Mark Steyn should be the least of Canada’s worries. Out of curiosity, how many “islamic scholars” have been brought up on these charges?
Slippery slope.
Everything offends someone.
Where do you draw the line?
So, according to cb, “free speech” means you can say whatever you want… as long as nobody who might hear it might be offended.
We elect our morals and to the extent that hate speech often leads to violence, usually against the weaker than, then give them a fair trial and if they fail to make their case, put them in jail.
Interesting. In our system, it’s the accuser that has to prove their case. Under cb’s system, it’s the accused that has to make their case. In other words, “guilty until proven innocent.”
And once again: no one is saying that England doesn’t have the right to exclude Savage. The question is whether they SHOULD. And it is clear that on the tripod of justifications — legal, moral, and practical — that they barely have one leg to stand on.
J.
“So, according to cb, “free speech” means you can say whatever you want… as long as nobody who might hear it might be offended.” or murdered.
You almost got it.
Yo mama’s not worth the effort, sorry.
canadian bacon: My point is this; a person can do what ever he wants in her living room, but the public space should be a moderated space to protect everybody’s rights, not just the biggest mouth with the most money, etc.
I don’t thin we’re really at all far apart on this point, although I don’t see the need for a moderator at all. If someone is up on a soap box shouting there is nothing to prevent another person plopping their box next to it and shouting and opposing view. Not the most civil or productive exchange of ideas, of course. But I don’t see it at all improved by adding someone with a stop watch saying “OK, your turn now.”
Cb said “Yo mama’s not worth the effort, sorry.” How rude of me. Sorry.
“Where do you draw the line?”
FYI people and government draw lines everyday. Bush drew a line with the wire taps. You think your speech is free; try saying something that really threatens the status quo. But as long as the state protects the hate mongers then there is freedom of speech. They’ve been protected far too long.
“Slippery slope.”
That’s just life in a democracy.
Again, sorry for my rudeness.
Bush drew a line with the wire taps. You think your speech is free; try saying something that really threatens the status quo.
And the “Free Speech Zones” behind a chain link fence.
There’s some discourse for ya.
Does “Thought Crime” = “Free Speech”?
Right wingers conveniently forget that American Citizen Jose Padilla was essentially jailed and tortured for years before he was finally convicted for essentially a “thought crime”.
Jose Padilla got 17 years for his “thought crime.”
Jose was the “dirty bomber” who didn’t have a plan or a clue and didn’t have access to anything that could do what he was accused of conspiring to do.
He didn’t “do” anything.
But he did go out of the country and talk crazy to crazy people. And he used to be a gang member. And he’s brown. And a convert to Islam.
And then he came back inside the United States, was immediately labeled an “enemy combatant” while inside America’s borders by Republican President Bush, and before he was ever convicted of anything he was mind-tortured for years until he was effectively “furniture”.
Initially Republican President Bush claimed the Monarchical power to deny the Constitutional guarantee of Habeas Corpus (the right to have your case reviewed by a judge).
After being imprisoned for over three years, as I understand without ever being charged with anything other than Republican Bush’s Monarchical claim that he could hold an American citizen based solely on the Monarch, sorry, Executives say so and could be held without Judicial review, Jose was finally charged with a crime and went before a Court.
The precedent of holding an American citizen without charges and mind-torturing them for years without a court’s review was set under a Republican. And of course the right wingers were cheering it on.
Left wingers were screaming that setting such a precedent was insane.
Precedents are like loaded guns left on a table. Each President comes into office with the powers that the last President left on the table.
Obama was given by REPUBLICAN BUSH A BIG TABLE FULL OF MONARCHICAL POWERS.
One of the reasons that right wingers are freaking out so badly now is that they are terrified that what they’ve done unto others might be done unto them.
Keep in mind the right wing media stars that have spouted crazy violent things.
Right winger Glenn Beck thinks people “suspected” of things should be shot in the head. Glenn Beck even admitted that he was “thinking about killing” an American citizen.
Right winger Bill O’Reilly encouraged terrorist to blow up an American city.
Then there is Hitler loving right wing terrorist G Gordon Liddy who advocated shooting American Law Enforcement Officers with “head shots”.
And what did Republican President Bush do? He set a precedent that “thinking” about killing can get an American citizen labeled an “enemy combatant” after which the President can mind-torture the “suspect” for years without a Court reviewing the imprisonment.
But Canada and Britain are clearly much worse than America.
Canada is naughty for hurting the feelings of a cartoonist that was deliberately trying to enrage the over one billion law abiding Muslims that still haven’t been provoked enough to become a threat.
And Britain is even naughtier for denying entry into their sovereign nation a foreign hate mongering nutjob that regularly spits out venomous, violent, crazy “thoughts”.
Yup. Clearly no comparison.
Aside from blatant calls for violence, speech should be censored by the government.
That is democracy. This bs where people get thrown in jail for offending one of the left’s protected demographics is a bunch of fascist garbage.
Again, any islamic scholars been prosecuted under some of Canada’s sensitivity laws?
Just one thing: if you think Ezra Levant’s troubles in Canada mean America is so much better, look up the reasons for setting up the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.
Wow. Another example of the single example being used as the exemplar. First it was Timothy McVeigh for right-wing terrorists, now it’s Abdullah al-Muhajir (nee Jose Padilla).
Let’s recall just what brought Padilla on to the Bush administration’s radar:
May 8, 2002: Padilla arrives at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport after an overseas trip, carrying $10,526, a cell phone and e-mail addresses for al-Qaida operatives.
You’d think, if you took Newsy seriously (and I don’t know why anyone would), that the Bush administration rounded up random Americans wholesale and tossing them into Guantanamo. Instead, one American (who had taken numerous actions that had shown his disregard and contempt for his citizenship and his nation) is all Newsy can dig up.
And the issue boils down to this: do we view terrorism as a military matter, or a legal one? Do we respond with soldiers or lawyers?
Clinton said lawyers. After the first WTC attack, that led to the African embassy bombings, the attack on the Cole, and 9/11.
Bush responded with soldiers.
(Obviously, a gross oversimplification — Clinton did use the military, and Bush did use lawyers. It’s more of a matter of priorities — Clinton put lawyers first, Bush soldiers first. But the point is valid.)
So, you got Abdullah al-Muhajir. You got one single example out of seven years. Big whoop. What else you got?
J.
“Again, any islamic scholars been prosecuted under some of Canada’s sensitivity laws?”
WTF are you talking about?
Shorter Jay (Tea): Throwing white people in jail for expressing unpopular views is horrible. Waterboarading brown people is A-OK!
Let me translate for you, cb:
Canada persecuted Ezra Levant for PUBLISHING CARTOONS.
Have any Islamists who routinely call Jews “sons of pigs and dogs” and call for outright genocide ever been brought up on similar charges?
Or are your little Star Chamber “human rights commissions” too busy posting their own neo-Nazi screeds on message boards so they can drum up business for themselves? (I’m referring to Richard Warman — I’m sure you’ve heard of him. He was a member of one of those Star Chambers that posted his own anti-Semitic screeds on neo-Nazi web sites. It’s unclear whether he was planting evidence, or hoping to inspire even more heated rhetoric — or if he really is a neo-Nazi at heart.)
J.
Canada persecuted Ezra Levant for PUBLISHING CARTOONS.
And the United States persecuted hundreds of people for possibly maybe being Communists. I can do this all day.
I’d go on, but I’m sure you’re busy at work waterboarding people that scare you.
Canada persecuted Ezra Levant for PUBLISHING CARTOONS.
And America persecuted hundreds of people for possibly knowing Communists. I can do this all day.
I’d go on, but I’m sure you’re too busy waterboarding people that scare you, so I’ll let you be.
I’m sure you can do it all day, Zython. Hell, I’ll help you — let’s toss in the Japanese internments and the way we treated Chinese immigrants.
But we’re not talking about stuff that happened decades ago. We’re talking about TODAY. There are people who think that PUBLISHING CARTOONS THEY DON’T LIKE ought to be killed — and the Canadian government is cooperating with them.
In Canada’s defense, they are trying to strike a compromise. Instead of killing them, they’re just trying to shut them up, fine them, or jail them. I guess we call that “moderation.”
FUCK THAT.
Canada, I’ll always love you. Twice in recent history, you came through and did tremendous service to Americans. During the Iranian hostage crisis, you sheltered Americans and smuggled them out of Iran. And on 9/11, you took in literally thousands of aircraft and gave those tens of thousands of passengers shelter until they could return home.
But you’ve got your heads seriously up your asses over this, and you need to rediscover your spines.
J.
“Have any Islamists who routinely call Jews “sons of pigs and dogs” and call for outright genocide ever been brought up on similar charges?”
I hope so.
Is he a Muslim scholar this Richard guy? I’m confused.
You keep pointing to political cartoons as trivial matters; if they’re so insignificant, then why are they so important to you?
“Canada, I’ll always love you. Twice in recent history, you came through and did tremendous service to Americans.”
At your service, Sir.
But we’re not talking about stuff that happened decades ago. We’re talking about TODAY.
The waterboarding you love so much is also happening today.
First off, if Ezra was detained under harsh circumstances, how could he have video-taped it?
Secondly, no seriously, how the fuck do you reconcile this with your cheerleading of torture? Unlike those people, at least Ezra was charged with something and tried.
“how the fuck do you reconcile this with your cheerleading of torture?”
Hannity said that as long as there is a doctor present and limited to twice a day and no longer than a prescribed amount of time, then it’s OK.
And America persecuted hundreds of people for possibly knowing Communists. I can do this all day.
And that wasn’t okay either.
yo mama: Aside from blatant calls for violence, speech should be censored by the government.
Tell me that’s a typo.
canadian bacon: But as long as the state protects the hate mongers then there is freedom of speech. They’ve been protected far too long.
The state isn’t actively protecting the hate mongers. Their speech is simply protected by virtue of it being speech and them being human. Humans have the right to be free of censorship from their government. The First Amendment is simply there to remind the government of its boundaries.
FYI people and government draw lines everyday. Bush drew a line with the wire taps. You think your speech is free; try saying something that really threatens the status quo.
Yes, and as your example shows the government cannot be trusted with the power it wields. Which is why I don’t want my government to be allowed to both create censorship laws and decide what to censor.
“Jay Tea” : Bush responded with soldiers.
And because Republican Bush’s ignorant, childish, reckless military zealotry lied US into the Iraq War, his ‘response with soldiers’ has resulted in 4,283 unnecessary American deaths in Iraq.
179 unnecessary British deaths in Iraq.
139 unnecessary deaths of various allies of America in Iraq.
Well over 100,000 unnecessary Iraqi deaths.
Our allies getting bombed (Spain, Britain…).
And because of Republican Bush’s lie of the Iraq War misdirected American troops to Iraq instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan, Afghanistan’s Taliban metastasized into nuclear armed Pakistan which is currently becoming increasingly unstable as the Taliban creep towards Pakistan’s nuclear facilities.
Than there is the over $1/2 TRILLION that’s already been (mis)spent on the Republican’s Iraq War Lie which is just scratching the multi-TRILLIONS of dollars that will be spent before we’re out.
And because the Republican Debtor Party didn’t want to pay for their Iraq War Lie, the Republicans doubled the US debt. Again. Just as the last several Republican Debtor Presidents all doubled the US debt.
Meanwhile, on the domestic front, Republicans shredded the Constitution and the Bill of Rights so that right wingers like “Jay Tea”, who never served a second in service (did you even volunteer?), could feel smug that brown people with funny names could be thrown into secret torture prisons for as long as their Abusive Daddy Party Leader’s decided.
And while American troops had inadequate body armor and inadequate MRAPs and received shoddy medical care at underfunded medical hospitals like Walter Reed, Republicans decided to demand a tax cut even while they were war profiteering from private, no bid contracts from companies they were getting kick backs from even while those companies evaded taxes by pretending to be working out of a P.O. Box on the Cayman Islands or the anti-Democratic dictatorship of Dubai.
And politically, the chickenhawk, war profiteering, Rovian right wingers were calling anyone who criticized them “traitors” and hinted that they might be the next “enemy combatant” that could be kidnapped and thrown in a torture prison forever.
And just to make sure everyone understood they were serious the Republicans would jack up the terror alert any time their poll numbers sagged.
And just for that extra little tug on the dog collar, they’d remind everyone that if they dialed the wrong number or misspelled an e-mail address, or even if their neighbor “suspected” something or thought they looked funny, they’d go on “a list” even though the truth of the matter was that EVERYONE was ON the list in the BIG database because the 4th Amendment and the Constitution weren’t applicable during the forever war against bad people who do bad things which was very unique from all of those other times in history when bad people did bad things.
“Jay Tea” : “What else you got?”
How about a petulant Republican President who had never seen combat that unnecessarily provoked a violent backlash that killed American soldiers with his childish taunts of “bring em on”, and talking about a crusade in a region where he didn’t even understand the basic differences between Sunni and Shia, and who didn’t understand the difference between accomplishing a mission and winning a war, even while he further endangered American troops with criminally torturing enemy suspects in ways that both increased the enemies recruitment propaganda as well as further risked American lives if American troops were captured?
And all of it slavishly worshiped by a rubber stamp Republican leadership so corrupt that it was nearly an alphabet of corruption.
Addington, Bybee, Cheney, DeLay, Enron (with Bush’s buddy Ken Lay and McCain’s buddy Phil “Enron loophole” Gramm), Feith, Gonzales, Haynes, Inhofe, Jackson (Alphonso), Kerik, Libby, Mukasey, Norquist, Oxycontin Limbaugh, Paulson, Q?, Rove, Stevens (Ted & son Ben), Taylor (Sara), US Attorney’s scandal, Vitter, Weldon, X?, Yoo, Zachares (Mark).
But you’ve got me, I can’t think of anything for Q or X.
Unless Q stands for all of the gay Republicans that worked so vigorously against gay rights.
And X stands for WHAT DID REPUBLICANS DO WITH ALL THOSE TRILLIONS IN TAXPAYER DOLLARS?
Jay Tea: Instead, one American (who had taken numerous actions that had shown his disregard and contempt for his citizenship and his nation) is all Newsy can dig up. … You got one single example out of seven years. Big whoop. What else you got?
Well, lots of questions.
So are you saying what happened to Padilla is okay because he’s just one person? Can you please tell me then where the line is? Is one okay, but 100 is not? Or do we have to get into the thousands?
Also, are you saying punishing those who show their disregard and contempt for the country is okay? How many times per day, then, does someone have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to show they aren’t displaying any contempt? And who is to decide if sufficient regard has been shown? Do the courts have to be involved, or can the police just make the decision as to guilt and sentence?
I get it limulus. It’s not easy to strike a balance. But like I keep saying, it’s worth the effort. That’s all.
“Tell me that’s a typo.”
It’s a Freudian slip LOL.
For decades the Republicans screamed like spoiled children if anyone criticized them, then they lied their War on and screamed that anyone that wasn’t ‘with them’ was ‘against them.’
And now right wingers are pissed because they Canadians can’t taunt Muslims with icons that desecrate their religion.
“Jay Tea,” ideally we could get you and the other chickenhawk Republicans to ACTUALLY SERVE THE NATION IN THE COMBATS YOU ARE PROVOKING.
But the truth is that weak minded right wing sociopaths like yourself, “Jay Tea”, for as much of a threat as you are to Americans sitting in your Mom’s basement in your Pajamas typing with your fellow cheetos eating 101st Keyboarder buddies, you’d be a far greater threat to our American troops if you were on the front line.
It may indeed be worth it Canada. But in the US we’ve got power hungry Christian fundamentalists with persecution complexes. Their definition of hate speech is not the same as yours or mine.
…
There are two approaches to freedom:
- One’s freedom stops where the others’ freedom begins.
- Law of the strong.
I’ll always believe the former is superior to the latter. Canada chose the former, the USA chose the latter. The right not to be a slave comes at the cost of the right to own slaves. It’s a choice of society.
And democracy means that each people can set its own standards and choose its own laws.
Looks like some peoples haven’t grasped that yet.
The USA have the unique power to make a Québécois proud of being Canadian. If I was an American, I’d emigrate.
P.S.: I have a few friends who are personna non grata in the USA for supporting Castro. Will anyone who support Savage speak up for them too?
limulus: Their definition of hate speech is not the same as yours or mine.
Which is why the only policy that works is not censoring any.
And that wasn’t okay either
Of course not, I was just pointing out the right’s hypocritical indignation on the matter.
MatanteDodo: I’ll always believe the former is superior to the latter. Canada chose the former, the USA chose the latter. The right not to be a slave comes at the cost of the right to own slaves. It’s a choice of society.
I’m confused. The “tyranny of the majority” is present in any democracy, no matter how big or small. Are you saying that the US is worse than Canada in this respect, or better?
P.S.: I have a few friends who are personna non grata in the USA for supporting Castro. Will anyone who support Savage speak up for them too?
Just because someone argues that Michael Savage has rights does not mean that someone supports Michael Savage. Big difference.
Regarding your friends, assuming their support for Castro is purely within the realm of speech, then yes, I think they should be welcome in the US.
I didn’t think there was any way for this to be unclear… the moment you begin to rob others of their rights, you are no longer in your right. Laws are necessary to guarantee that certain liberties are available to all; these laws will restrict some other liberties, but a society chooses which are more important. Your country picked them in a way that would not suit me, and that gets liberal people of the world to feel sorry for your poor, but it is your right. When you criticise other countries for picking them different, however, you should also remember that we are just as qualified to decide of our priorities. It can be quite insulting otherwise.
Matante, I would argue that you have your comparison backwards. Canada is yielding to the strong — those who have demonstrated, repeatedly, that they take offense very quickly and respond very violently. In the US, however, we are saying that we will NOT compromise our principles of freedom of expression in the face of threats of force.
Newsy: do you type that litany fresh every time, or do you have it saved so you can cut and paste it whenever you get bored with the topic at hand and feel the need to vent?
J.
Matante, there’s a fundamental philosophical difference at play here. This is a gross generalization, of course, but there are two types of freedom: “freedom to” and “freedom from.”
I believe that my right TO speak whatever I want to say trumps your right to be free FROM offense.
You apparently believe that your right to be free FROM offense trumps my right TO speak.
Sean, I respect how painful it must have been to come down on the same side as me. My sympathies; it hurt to have you come down on my side.
J.
Wow, troll said my name, I feel important!
Herrrrrre, I’ll feed you, precious little Jay:
Québec’s charter of human rights; skip to article 11 if the whole text is too long for you.
http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/stat/rsq-c-c-12/latest/rsq-c-c-12.html
If I got it backward by considering that my right to have a job and a social life without having to fight every possible prejudice everytime is more important than your right to have a power trip, then eight millions of us got it backward.
Matante, I would argue that you have your comparison backwards. Canada is yielding to the strong — those who have demonstrated, repeatedly, that they take offense very quickly and respond very violently. In the US, however, we are saying that we will NOT compromise our principles of freedom of expression in the face of threats of force.
*Pftttt*BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
The last 8 years have been you guys doing everything you can to destroy America in the name of fighting terrorism.
MatanteDodo, thanks, that did clear up what you were saying for me. I definitely agree on both points, which is perhaps why I’m irked about Canadians suggesting that the US should adopt laws restricting hate speech. Not only is it politically untenable (the Constitution is hard to change, the Supreme Court is unlikely to overturn precedent, and the populace is indoctrinated with the idea that freedom of speech is the most fundamental right), but I think there’s a legitimate claim that allowing our government to censor even a smidgen opens door to serious abuse of power that would overshadow any good it would do.
“… I’m irked about Canadians suggesting that the US should adopt laws restricting hate speech.”
Pretty sensitive aren’t we?
Nobody’s telling Americans what to do; just don’t always tell everybody else how to conduct there own affairs. If we want to ban hate speech we can and will; if we want to keep that strange US Baptist Church away from gay rights rallies in OUR country, we can and we will. If we want to expel the the likes of Zundle, we can and will. If you want him, be our guest. You’re free to do so. Get out of the kitchen if you can’t stand the heat. The UK was right to keep the American loon out of their country. Period. Seems obvious to me.
canadian bacon: Pretty sensitive aren’t we?
Yup.
Nobody’s telling Americans what to do; just don’t always tell everybody else how to conduct there own affairs.
I hope I wasn’t coming off that way. My purpose in commenting was only to inform why this is a bad idea for the US. If Canada can make it work, more power to you.
No you’re not coming off that way. Sorry for being such a hot head. My soapbox is a little worn out. I’ll curb my own free speech.
Can we please try to keep these things remotely on topic? News Reference, I mean you specifically. In this instance Jaytea’s position is practically indistinguishable from mine, so your going on and on about the Iraq War is kind of silly considering that I’ve been against that and 99.999999% of what Jaytea and the right supports.
About those Dutch cartoons. That was a low moment. For the Muslim faith.
They were fucking cartoons. Islam is one of the world’s major religions. They can’t deal with goddamn cartoons? Give me a break. I wrote about this at the time, but that was embarrassing for them. For all the grief I give Christianity – particularly conservative Christianity, you don’t see the mass of christian faith rioting in the streets over flipping cartoons.
For the record, it should be noted that Oliver didn’t agree with me in this case. I agreed with him. He had no control over my choosing to take his side.
J.
Of course not, I was just pointing out the right’s hypocritical indignation on the matter.
How does Jay Tea become a hypocrite when you bring up irrelevant issues like Communism in the 50′?
And what is with people who constantly shout, “It’s about the hypocrisy!” and claim victory off that? You’re sitting there, discussing completely irrelevant issues like waterboarding and communism while Jay Tea is talking about how Canada reacts to cartoons and acting is if you’re trumping him on the issue.
Here’s a clue: Even if Jay Tea is being hypocritical, that doesn’t mean he’s WRONG. Shouting, “YOU’RE A HYPOCRITE!” is the lazy thinking person’s idea of discussing an issue.
Oliver Willis: “If you ban certain types of speech, as the UK, Canada, and Germany do in one form or another, all it does is lend strength to the hatemongers.”
That is only partially true. It is a philosophical belief which the historical record contradicts more often than it supports.
If you give a hatemonger a megaphone THAT’S what lends strength to the hatemongers more often than not giving them the megaphone in the first place.
The UK made a sovereign decision not to give a foreign hatemonger a megaphone on their home soil.
I’m not saying I agree with it but I certainly understand it. To reverse the position, it’s the same complaint that the right wing had when Iran’s #2, Ahmadinejad, came to New York. I didn’t agree with right wingers complaints about barring him and prohibiting him from speaking but I certainly understood those complaints.
Right wingers had a case to make against Ahmadinejad, I listened, I was very sympathetic, but while my heart agreed with them my head ultimately didn’t. Right wingers were just screaming to scream and weren’t making a coherent argument against allowing Ahmadinejad safe passage and an opportunity to speak.
But would denying him the opportunity to speak ’strengthen’ the ‘hatemonger’?
Nonsense.
What it would have done is hurt America’s claim of tolerance and damage our claim of celebrating free speech. It would have hurt US and our claim of holding true to our ideals.
Perhaps right winger Ahmadinejad concluded that silly liberal American idealism would sell him the rope to hang US with.
It’s just as likely that Ahmadinejad’s American travels gave him a broader perspective and a recognition that many in America are decent people and not at all like the satan he’s caricatured US as. Ideally it might have provided him an international perspective that might be a cornerstone of gaining his compliance in the future.
Nonetheless, my conservative streak “feels” that Ahmadinejad went away believing there are a lot of suckers in America. Though I “hope” he left feeling he misjudged Americans.
Ultimately the independent part of me doesn’t so much as “hope” or “feel” but “believe” that it was more valuable to take the opportunity to have Ahmadinejad come to America. While it’s a gamble that it would help US, it clearly didn’t hurt US, and didn’t seem to particularly help or hurt Ahmadinejad.
But more than any of that, it maintained an American principle. A principle that the right wing just conveniently rediscovered.
It’s sad that right wingers are always ready to flush America’s ideals and principles down the toilet, at least until they realize that sometimes their own excrement can get flushed down that same toilet.
It’s funny that it took the UK applying the same rules to an American right winger that many American right wingers demanded be applied to Ahmadinejad to get American right wingers to suddenly rediscover American principles.
But it’s part of Right Wingers and Republican’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People
My feelings are that Rules are to be applied the same for Everyone. As I understand it, America reserves the right to deny entry to anyone it chooses for an increasingly long list of reasons. I’d complain about that before complaining about what choices other countries are making.
Thos right wingers that called to bar Ahmadinejad are hypocritical to try to make Weiner/Savage a ‘martyr.’
Though at this point, to me, anything “hypocritical” IS “right wing”, it’s the right wing’s defining characteristic.
First up, Newsy needs to learn that “left” and “right” don’t translate well into other nations. Especially in Iran’s case.
Next, there differences between Savage and Ahmedimanutjob are so vast as to make any comparisons irrelevant.
1) Savage is a private individual, Ahmedimanutjob is a head of state — that, last time I checked, still considers itself at war with the US.
B) Savage is prohibited from setting foot in England for any reason whatsoever. Ahmedimanutjob came here for the specific intent of giving a speech.
III) Savage has never, to the best of my knowledge, ever committed a violent crime, or ordered such. Ahmedimanutjob has been instrumental in attacks on Iraqis, Kurds, and Americans.
But other than that, they are pretty much interchangeable.
Oh, and cb, I know I’ve said this a few times, but this bears hammering home.
You said:
Jay Tea: “… infamous Mohammed cartoons …” They weren’t infamous, they were inflammatory and insulting to millions and millions of people. They were also politically motivated to marginalize and scapegoat a group of people who were made vulnerable by some heinous acts perpetrated by terrorists who use their religion as a justification of their hatred of others. Sorry, but we don’t burn Ladas in the public square, or build Liberty Trees out of plastic leaves and hot air. The human Rights Stars are not perfect either, I’ll give you that, but at least they’re trying.
No, the cartoons were done to illustrate that Islamic law and tradition does NOT trump Western ideals and principles and freedoms. To demonstrate that “blasphemy” is a meaningless term in the courts and governments of the West. To show that “respect” cannot be mandated or commanded or demanded or coerced at the threat of violence.
That was the stated intent. The actual effect was to show that there are a LOT of people out there who don’t get that, and are ready and willing to resort to violence to prove their point. Or, in some cases, smart enough to try to use our own legal system against us to get their way.
It was an invaluable lesson. It showed the violent ones which peoples can be cowed, and which need more intimidation.
You might want to reconsider your chosen name, cb. “Bacon” is an unclean pig product. That is offensive to Muslims. Might I suggest a more Islamist-friendly (and accurate) “canadian sheep?”
J.
Oh, dammit, the whole POINT of that comment was to post a link to the cartoons in question, and I hit “submit” too damned soon.
Here they are:
ezralevant.com/2008/01/my-visit-to-a-kangaroo-court.html
J.
“They were fucking cartoons. Islam is one of the world’s major religions. They can’t deal with goddamn cartoons?”
They were intended to incite violence against a group pf innocent people who were already threatened because of 911. So because it’s a fucking cartoon … then everything is OK? How about a series of lynching cartoons, or holocaust cartoons, or rape cartoons …. where in the end we all chuckle and “oh what the hell, no harm intended, they’re just a bunch or cartoons.”
“For all the grief I give Christianity – particularly conservative Christianity, you don’t see the mass of christian faith rioting in the streets over flipping cartoons.”
Christians might be powerful in your society, but they are threatened and killed in other places so a cartoon in a different context means alot. The powerful don’t riot, they legislate.
Allowing hate talkers unfettered power to incite means you live in an intolerable society, and not the other way around.
“You might want to reconsider your chosen name, cb. “Bacon” is an unclean pig product. That is offensive to Muslims. Might I suggest a more Islamist-friendly (and accurate) “canadian sheep?””
That’s funny. But it’s obvious that you hate Muslims.
So because it’s a fucking cartoon … then everything is OK? How about a series of lynching cartoons, or holocaust cartoons, or rape cartoons …. where in the end we all chuckle and “oh what the hell, no harm intended, they’re just a bunch or cartoons.”
YES.
At least as far as getting the government to censor them. NEVER.
Christians might be powerful in your society, but they are threatened and killed in other places so a cartoon in a different context means alot. The powerful don’t riot, they legislate.
A few years ago, Christians in the US were up in arms over a crucifix submerged in urine. Their demands were outrageous:
“We don’t want tax money going to pay for this!”
For that, they were called censors and hate-mongers and bigots.
Stupid Christians. They should have threatened to kill the artist and burn down the museum where it was displayed. Maybe then they might have gotten the government to go along with the censorship.
Allowing hate talkers unfettered power to incite means you live in an intolerable society, and not the other way around.
So, who decides who is a “hate talker?” Or as the saying goes, “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
I think Savage is a crashing bore and a boor and a buffoon. I also think Janeane Garofolo, Keith Olbermann, Alec Baldwin, Randi Rhodes, and Al Franken (to name just a few) have said far more provocative and inciteful things than Savage. Baldwin called for the lynching of a member of Congress and his entire family. Rhodes cracked about shooting Bush. Neither were hauled before the government to answer for their “hate speech.”
And they shouldn’t have been.
Keep on being a good little dhimmi, cb. I’m sure that’ll keep you far down on the list for “re-education.”
J.
“Jay” : “You’re sitting there, discussing completely irrelevant issues like waterboarding and communism while Jay Tea is talking about how Canada reacts to cartoons and acting is if you’re trumping him on the issue.”
Off topic rants don’t diminish the damage hypocrisy does to an argument.
Nor can I take any argument of “Jay Tea’s” at face value.
I say with assurance that he’s not concerned with “free speech” over “cartoons.”
What “Jay Tea’s” point is is to find a way to provoke Muslims by insulting their God.
That’s what those “cartoons” are about: Insulting Muslims by caricaturing the face of their God.
That kind of stupid provocation endangers American troops on the ground around the world.
“Jay Tea” and other chickenhawk right wingers genuinely don’t care about American troops.
Those right wingers have larger agendas that would be served quite fine if American troops get killed in numbers that enlarge the scope of the war that right wingers are trying to manipulate US into.
Right wingers like “Jay Tea” sit on their cowardly arses deliberately trying to provoke a larger war that endangers MY COUNTRYMEN.
Forgive me if I don’t feel it necessary to start a fight with Canada just because a chickenhawk warmongering extremist is screaming like a petulant child because the Comics didn’t come with the Sunday paper.
And “Jay”, you are welcome to find those cartoons and publish them over at your blog. As a matter of fact, you could become the ‘mock the face of Muslim’s God’ guy and spend all the rest of your days making mocking pictures of Allah.
Myself, I wouldn’t publish them any more than I would publish a Hustler caricature of Jerry Falwell [Google search, mostly SFW], but hey, that’s just me.
Calling “Jay Tea” a chickenhawk warmongering extremist that doesn’t care about American troops is where I draw the line.
That’s my opinion. I believe it to be completely true.
But making a fake ad that pretends “Jay Tea” claims to have lost his virginity to his Mom, well, that’s not my thing.
Especially considering I hear “Jay Tea” is unemployed and still living with his Mom.
He’s so sensitive about it that he’s repeatedly threatened to sue those that have brought it up.
Which comes back to the “hypocrisy” about “free speech” thing.
Apparently, “free speech” to right winger “Jay Tea” is anything that doesn’t offend HIM personally.
“Stupid Christians. They should have threatened to kill the artist and burn down the museum where it was displayed”
That’s where hate radio comes in; they instruct other listening loons to carry out their deed. I’m surprized the artist wasn’t killed, like the abortion doctors were.
I can’t so this all day you know; I have a job and a real mortgage and I don’t live in my mother’s basement.
Well, well, well. Newsy, as usual, is all fixated on me again. And, as usual, doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but that never stops him — he just makes up whatever shit sounds good to him.
I’ll only respond to one aspect of it. My mother died 20 years ago this fall, and I’m currently looking out a street-level window.
The rest of what he has to say is of similar accuracy.
The core point here is freedom of expression. cb’s position is that you’re free to say or publish whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t offend the crazies who might kill people over it. Newsy is right there with him, eager to protect the right of the crazies to act crazy and commit horrific crimes — because they’re just savage animals and can’t be held responsible for their actions. No, when those crazies go off and commit murder, it’s the fault of some guy who said or wrote or published something that they didn’t like. And if that guy happens to be George W. Bush or someone Newsy can somehow tie to Bush, then why even bother with a pretense of a trial?
If someone gets so worked up over cartoons, then the cartoonist doesn’t need to be silenced. The offended person needs to GROW THE FUCK UP.
J.
Sounds like NR hit a nerve?
Not really, cb. He can’t even get his legal defamations right. He’s completely mangled Strowbridge’s original libel to the point of being utterly pointless.
Much like himself…
Good thing the US doesn’t have Canadian-style “human rights tribunals,” or I could haul him before one of those.
J.
Oh, and cb, if you look at the sheer volume of Newsy’s rant and how much of it is focused on me, it appears that I hit the nerve.
And I wasn’t even trying…
J.
“Jay Tea’s” genocidal right wing buddy is quite explicit about his advocacy for mass murder:
“”…I said so kill 100 million of them, then there would be 900 million of them [Muslims].”"
I suppose, technically, right winger Michael Weiner”Savage”’s advocacy of mass murder isn’t “genocide” but rather the literal decimation of a religious group by killing “100 million of them”.
So, should non-Observant Jews feel comfortable that they wouldn’t be the targets of Michael Weiner”Savage” if he decides that believers of Judaism should be similarly targeted for decimation?
‘First they came for the Orthodox Muslim, but I wasn’t an Orthodox Muslim…?’
That “Jay Tea” would defend the ranting of a murderous lunatic isn’t surprising, after all, he “works” for a psychopath.
Britain’s Telegraph.co.uk published that quote by Michael Weiner”Savage” this morning, by the way, amongst several others.
That’s what those “cartoons” are about: Insulting Muslims by caricaturing the face of their God.
Actually the cartoons in question caricatured the Prophet Muhammad, not Allah.
And your long diatribes are nothing more than chest puffing silliness. The notion that we need to put a cover over these cartoons because it might provoke a Muslim to violence is absurd.
Jay Tea’s main gripe is that a person published cartoons (I wonder how many cartoons that have caricatured the Pope for instance, have been the subject of such controversy and threats of worldwide violence?) and because somebody had a hissy fit about it, he was hauled before a Human Rights Commission to answer for it.
I remember the ‘famous’ piece of ‘art’ referred to as ‘Piss Christ’ by Andres Serrano who has since graduated to using feces as a medium in his photography. Jay Tea is right about the response. It stirred outrage because some of the funding for the exhibit was given through a grant from the National Endowment For The Arts. But that response of course did not bring worldwide threats of violence. And Jay Tea is right in that the response to the concerns of those who were insulted was pretty much along the lines of, “Get over it already.”
What’s hilarious about that Canadian kangaroo court is that the people who bring the complaints have their legal fees paid entirely by the state while the accused is responsible for their own legal fees.
Not sure how the subject got so off track here, but Oliver is 100% right here. If England wants to engage in these kinds of tactics, they’re free to do so. Same goes for Canada and that goofball Human Rights Commission. That doesn’t make it right and it’s a blotch on those countries for it.
Newsy, you keep linking to that same old Glenn Greenwald piece. Why don’t you ever actually link to the source material?
The answer is, of course, is because you don’t want people to see that original article and read it and think for themselves. You want them to believe what you say about it. If they don’t trust you (and god knows you’ve given them plenty of reasons to not trust your word on anything), then you hope they’ll take Greenwald’s word on it. Only if someone is willing to jump through all the hoops you’ve set up will they get to the original material.
The sole redeeming quality about your laziness and dishonesty is that it’s so transparent. And even more fittingly, the ugliness of your site is a perfect depiction of your ugly little soul.
J.
“Good thing the US doesn’t have Canadian-style “human rights tribunals,” or I could haul him before one of those.”
It doesn’t actually work that way but I understand why you need to believe that it does. In typical fashion you demean what you can’t understand, because it threatens your little world view of the perfect America. You live in a pseudo democracy that’s really a totalitarian state; you just don’t know it. The hate mongers do your bidding and you stand at the side lines cheering them on and protecting their right to hate people more vulnerable than them. Keep playing in your little sand box and keep building those perfect little sand castles. The winds of change will eventually blow them over. Your country is corrupt and you export corruption like it was a business. And if your mother did die 20 years ago, why are you still living in her basement?
“The core point here is freedom of expression.”
Which is what makes Right winger “Jay Tea’ss” ludicrous, litigious rage so hypocritical.
It’s classic right wing hypocrisy: rage against something until the tables are turned and then suddenly their own rules don’t apply to them.
Someone said something that offended “Jay Tea” and he got so worked up that he went on and on and on about suing the person.
What was it that got you all fired up, “Jay Tea”? Someone said you “got fired”, was that it?
Right winger “Jay Tea” tried to intimidate the person’s “freedom of expression.”
But, wait, see, when it comes to saying stuff about “Jay Tea”, suddenly he remembers there are rules. Suddenly he remembers that he can use the power of the government to intimidate a person’s “freedom of expression” into silence.
But those rules don’t apply to him when he wants to use “freedom of expression” to provoke a wider war and endanger American troops.
No siree, in Right Wingers World, Rules Are ALWAYS For Other People
“canadian bacon” considering how concerned “Jay Tea” is with Canadian’s “Freedom of Expression”, you could exercise your “Jay Tea” defended Canadian Right to “Freedom of Expression” by always referring to “Jay Tea” as “the guy who got fired”.
You could even mix it up and make a list of reasons why “Jay Tea” got fired.
I’d say that “Jay Tea’s” fierce defense of “Freedom of Expression”, a defense so zealous that he is going out of his way to risk American troops’ lives with his deliberately provocative “cartoons”, has completely ruined any legal attack he might have made against hypothetical “libel”.
After all, “Jay Tea’s” absolute and unwavering commitment to risking American troops lives to forward his intentionally provocative “freedom of expression” seems like a perfectly valid legal defense against any complaint by him of others using provocative “freedom of expression” that might emotionally distress him.
Then again, he thinks Rules are for Other People. So who knows how “fired” up he’ll get. I would have said “worked” up but I still question his employment status.
Jay Tea: Sean, I respect how painful it must have been to come down on the same side as me. My sympathies; it hurt to have you come down on my side.
Huh??? Not sure where in this thread I “I agree with JT”‘d, but if we’re on the same side it has caused me no pain at all to see you on, for once, the correct side of things.
For the record, it should be noted that Oliver didn’t agree with me in this case. I agreed with him. He had no control over my choosing to take his side.
Oh, Christ. Does everything have to be scoring points? You both hold the same opinion on something. It’s not like either of you swayed the other to their side. You both started and ended in the same place. But here comes JT to claim he’s “won”. Sheesh!
—-
Jay: Here’s a clue: Even if Jay Tea is being hypocritical, that doesn’t mean he’s WRONG.
Well, being hypocritical suggests one’s promoting two essentially opposing positions, so there’s a “wrong” in there somewhere. In any event, it certainly brings into question the person’s credibility.
—-
News Ref: Oliver Willis: “If you ban certain types of speech, as the UK, Canada, and Germany do in one form or another, all it does is lend strength to the hatemongers.”
That is only partially true. It is a philosophical belief which the historical record contradicts more often than it supports.
If you give a hatemonger a megaphone THAT’S what lends strength to the hatemongers more often than not giving them the megaphone in the first place.
No. Historically it’s been giving the hatemonger a megaphone and mot giving one to the other side that’s caused the problems. As noted above a couple of times (surprised you missed it), Hitler didn’t compete with opposing voices, he silenced them.
—-
canadian bacon: They were intended to incite violence against a group pf innocent people who were already threatened because of 911. So because it’s a fucking cartoon … then everything is OK? How about a series of lynching cartoons, or holocaust cartoons, or rape cartoons …. where in the end we all chuckle and “oh what the hell, no harm intended, they’re just a bunch or cartoons.”
NO. The format shouldn’t protect them from criticism. But something depicts you as as a bunch of irrational, violent fanatics does it really serve you interest to express your objections by acting like bunch of irrational, violent fanatics?
“Actually the cartoons in question caricatured the Prophet Muhammad, not Allah.”
Thanks, Jay. That’s an important correction.
“As noted above a couple of times (surprised you missed it), Hitler didn’t compete with opposing voices, he silenced them.”
Eventually!! He used hate speech to get to power and then silenced the opposition. Scapegoating is a very powerful tool.
Can’t wait until the WORLD COURT gets the bastards that ruled your country for the past 8 years. That’s why JT fears Human Rights Tribunals. But at least they’ll get a trial. Or maybe, I know, just call them enemy combatants? Wake the fuck up.
SDM … “The format shouldn’t protect them from criticism. But something depicts you as as a bunch of irrational, violent fanatics does it really serve you interest to express your objections by acting like bunch of irrational, violent fanatics?”
Don’t understand what you mean? Please elaborate.
People who fear human rights are usually the same people that trample all over them.
One more thing: at least we don’t export our kangaroo courts and then have the gal call them democracies. Really now?
canadian bacon: Don’t understand what you mean? Please elaborate.
(Thanks for asking me to clarify rather than assuming I said I may not have. Hopefully the start of a trend.)
As I understand/recall it, many of the objections to the cartoons were that they depict Muslims as violent (turban as a bomb) and fanatical (suicide bombers arriving in heaven to find no virgins left). And many reacted to these deceptions, to these implications that they were prone to violence, by… holding violent protests.
They issued death threats (Mahmoud al-Zahar), they set fire to Danish embassies (Syria, Lebanon and Iran,), etc. Granted not all reacted in this way, but certianly a notable portion did.
If you object to someone saying you’re acting like a child, you aren’t going to convince them otherwise if you stomp your feet, make widdle fists and scream “I’m not! I’m not! I’m not!”
I just wish Canadians would quit coming over the border for our health care and medical procedures. S*** happens all the time. They have their own government funded utopian care….
….which evidently sucks.
Or they wouldn’t come over here.
(Thanks for asking me to clarify rather than assuming I said I may not have. Hopefully the start of a trend.)
Not likely lol.
Oh I see, I thought you meant up here.
“Granted not all reacted in this way, but certianly a notable portion did.”
I guess that’s why the cartoons are objectionable and were not allowed here. JT just wants to rub everybody’s face in “were better, we’re better” and I don’t see much point in that either. Hiding behind free speech in this case is disingenuous. If you poke someone’s eye with a stick, they might get angry.
I’m not afraid of anger and I do have a spine but I just don’t get the point, in this case. Some Muslims wanted to establish Shiria Law in one of our provinces and it was dead in the water. I guess under total freedom that should be allowed. But we draw lines where we draw lines. If the Shiria Law advocates want to run in an election, they can and nothing here will stop them except hopefully the electorate.
But to just incite for the sake of it seems stupid to me. Those sorts of action are usually premeditated and intend harm and are usually racist based. That is all.
How does Jay Tea become a hypocrite when you bring up irrelevant issues like Communism in the 50′?
First off, I don’t know Jay (Tea)’s stance on the communism trials, so I generalized. The hypocrisy comes from defending putting people on trial for expressing a view in one instance, and condemning it in another. The waterboarding is, of course, a more pertinent and damning example, since Jay (Tea) HAS gone on the record to support it, not to mention the fact that in the other examples, the people in question actually got a trial. The only reason you say they’re “irrelevant” is because it makes your side look bad.
Here’s a clue: Even if Jay Tea is being hypocritical, that doesn’t mean he’s WRONG.
I’m not saying he’s wrong. I’m saying that HE’s saying he’s wrong about one of those issues. I’m saying that if he feels strongly about this issues, then he should reexamine his stance on other similar issues.
Canadian bacon…..
If myself and millions of others outraged, rioted, and threatened to kill people because of something we found offensive, to me, it sounds like Canada would ban whatever it was that drove us crazy. It would not be our fault for flipping out, but instead would be the fault of the individual that created such an offense. And he could be charged with a crime. Hopefully, you’ll see how these type of things can lead to intimidation tactics by groups that are allegedly “offended” by something. Britain bans Michael Savage. They would not let Geert Wilders in. And why? Because some uncivilized animals in their nation will torch London to bully the rest of the country into caving to their demands.
That isn’t freedom. That is cowardice. And you make Canada sound like a cowardly nation whose principles are negotiable based on how happy or unhappy any said demographic *claims* to be.
That is pathetic and weak.
And it is totalitarian and fascist in nature.
“I just wish Canadians would quit coming over the border for our health care and medical procedures. S*** happens all the time. They have their own government funded utopian care….
….which evidently sucks.
Or they wouldn’t come over here.”
The Heritage Foundation Talking Point, via Hannity, Dumbbaugh, Levine and fuck head Beck. They call it the conservative underground … I call it a coffin.
Sean D. Martin,
American troops, who are on the front lines of our multiple war zones and are trying to deal effectively with a diverse, muti-ethnic, multi-cultural, and multi-racial group of people, aren’t helped when right wing ‘fighting keyboardists’ sitting back home keep trying to provoke a larger war by enraging all of those diverse factions with the one element that could unite many of them: an attack on their shared Religion.*
Nor does it help to call a potential ally “a child.”
There are a lot of potential Muslim allies and even more Muslim moderates.
Right Wing extremists like “Jay Tea” are deliberately trying to provoke a wider war.
I’ll grant that “Jay” and many other right wingers and even many lefties only see the “cartoons” as a “free speech” issue.
I’m not trying to diminish the importance of that principle.
But neo-con-artists like “Jay Tea” have much more duplicitous aims attached to supporting ‘just’ “cartoons”.
Neo-con-artists recognize that it’s a way of generating conflicts and it’s the conflict that they are seeking, even at the expense of American troops lives.
The irony is that even while complaining about the violent reactions that extreme right wing Muslims have to what they see as a desecration of their faith, it’s that violent reaction that the neo-con-artists are deliberately trying to generate in order to broaden the conflict.
Neo-con-artists are literally trying to get US to broaden the war over ‘just’ “cartoons.”
If it’s childish to react violently over ‘just’ “cartoons”, than why would we?**
It’s the same thing with the right wing’s attempt to make a ‘martyr’ out of that murderous right wing lunatic Weiner”Savage”.
The right wing is trying to make a psycho who has literally advocated for the decimation of Muslims, a ‘martyr’.
It’s sheer neo-con-artistry.
* I can’t recall if Sunni and Shia reacted the same to the images, my memory is saying that one group, ?the shia, weren’t riled up by the images?
** Leo Strauss would find this particularly Machiavellian, I think.
Canadian bacon,
maybe you’re defending some of this just out of kneejerk national pride, I’m not sure, but when I say this I’m being honest, if in fact you are happy with Canadian gov’t health care, you’re the first person I’ve ever seen admit it. All I ever hear from Canadians, and pretty much everyone from a nation with that kind of system is how god awful the treatment and service is. Here in the states, we call that BMV-style health care. And if you’re not familiar with the BMV, consider yourself lucky.
And finally, simple point here – if you ban cartoons because you’re afraid some demographic in your society might go batshit crazy and riot, you are being bullied and pushed around. Their intimidation tactics are working. And the Canadian people should think really hard about what kind of precedent they’re setting by caving in to the demands of a vocal minority that now knows and understands it can get it’s way by behaving in such a savage and uncivilized manner.
What is going on is exteremely cowardly on the part of the Canadians. Free speech is for everyone. Or at least in a nation *claims* to value freedom, it should be. Unfortunately in Canada, that’s not the case.
yo mam you’re living in a fantasy world. You have no suppleness and use broad strokes in every case. Our freedom doesn’t come at the end of a gun, which apparently is your yardstick for measuring freedom. We are free, thank you very much. We vote, we’re capitalist (unlike what the blowhards claim), we stand along side your fights WHEN THEY ARE JUSTIFIED, we have schools, hospitals, we watch TV, listen to the radio, we’re married, divorced, sad, happy, we are born, live and die. We choose our country, but thanks for asking.
Your country needs enemies to create a cohesion that is lacking at its core; terrorism, communism, Arabs, liberals, Conservatives, Canadians, Cubans, drugs (that was for you Rush). All countries need enemies to create said cohesion but your country needs more than most; where’s the peace dividend promised after the cold war? That was scary, so lets look for more enemies; oh look, they’ve landed in our lap at the WTC. Let s go to Iraq and get the slimly bastards. Oh right, they had nothing to do with 911. Oh well, he wasn’t a very nice guy anyways. But wait a minute, we armed him before, didn’t we. Oh who care, our friends made alot of $$ defending what exactly. Nothing wrong with China though. They have slave camps, kill students who want the free speech that you claim is essential for democracy … but who cares, right, they make cheap computers, TVs … ad infinitum.
Take that veil away from your blurry eyes and look far into the dessert; what do you see?
“And the Canadian people should think really hard about what kind of precedent they’re setting by caving in to the demands of a vocal minority that now knows and understands it can get it’s way by behaving in such a savage and uncivilized manner.”
Kinda like you moral majority?
All countries need enemies to create said cohesion but your country needs more than most;
Yes, you have to give us credit for using up all the oxygen in the room more often than not.
One thing we as a Americans are really good at is excess.
canadian bacon: Hiding behind free speech in this case is disingenuous. If you poke someone’s eye with a stick, they might get angry.
Sure they might. And they should be able to poke you back. In this case, since the initial “pole” is words and print, they should be able to rebut you in words and print.
Literal pokes in retaliation we, of course, frown on. We respond to those by charging people with assault.
News Ref: Nor does it help to call a potential ally “a child.”
Nor does it work to respond to a child as if they are acting like an adult. You don’t put them in charge, which is what happens when the response to “I’m going to throw a fit” is answerwed with “Don’t do that and we’ll give you whatever you want.”
There are a lot of potential Muslim allies and even more Muslim moderates.
And I doubt they were the ones burning embassies and issueing death edicts.
But [neo-cons] have much more duplicitous aims attached to supporting ‘just’ “cartoons”.
… it’s that violent reaction that the [neo-cons] are deliberately trying to generate in order to broaden the conflict.
I think you’re seeing conspiracy where none really exists. Sure, there are those who would point to the most irrational, violet reactions to something and say “See, there is the typical reaction. Clearly all of these people are evil.” But that’s a far cry from generating that violent reaction in the first place.
canadian bacon: “And the Canadian people should think really hard about what kind of precedent they’re setting by caving in to the demands of a vocal minority that now knows and understands it can get it’s way by behaving in such a savage and uncivilized manner.”
Kinda like you moral majority?
Or, the Canadian people apparently can respond by saying “look over there”.
So “Sean D. Martin” feels a need to try to provoke with “words and print” a tinderbox region where American troops are at risk?
And this coming from the same Sean D. Martin who criticized me for mocking someone with “words and print?”
Arguably there’s a difference in the nature of who was criticized.
But if provocations with “words and print” that are intentionally designed to endanger American troops and broaden the scope of multiple war fronts is okay, why wouldn’t just about any other kind of provocation through “words and print” be okay?
Certainly no one was put at risk for my mocking.
What am I missing?
canadian bacon…
And you get thrown in jail for relevant political cartoons because it might offend someone.
That isn’t freedom.
“Hitler didn’t compete with opposing voices, he silenced them.”
Nonsense. Before becoming Dictator, Hitler competed quite tenaciously with “opposing voices” for more than a decade.
He didn’t just wake up with the power to silence his opposition.
Long before becoming Dictator and silencing his opponents, Hitler was noted to be an extremely effective speaker and propagandist. He published a book, he published a newspaper, and he honed his propaganda techniques for over a decade before becoming Dictator.
In fact, Hitler wouldn’t have gotten anywhere if he hadn’t been extremely effective at competing with opposing voices.
That was part of his mastery.
“Or, the Canadian people apparently can respond by saying “look over there”.”
I looked over there and don’t like what I always see. My choice, right?
All I can say is this; societies’ choose where to draw the line. We draw the line at hate speech. Mr. Levant, for example, is either a) aware of Canadian mores or if not at the outset, then is b) made aware that he wasn’t allowed to print said comics. All is well. He gets a hearing, loses but can still talk about his efforts, beliefs etc. NOBODY is stopping him. He has a blog, he raises money, he writes books that we can choose to buy or not. He can make his case all day long, he can run for office on that issue, he can enlist the help of politicians to make his case, he can try and change the law that he thinks is unjust. Nobody will stop him. Then come election time, he can put forward his case, we the people will consider his remarks, and either vote for him or not. I don’t see the problem. I’m really not sure why so many do.
We as a people make decision about how we live, if people like Levant don’t like it they can always move there. Mr Fromm did that very thing. There wasn’t a political home for him here and he choose to leave and your country and you choose to accept him.
To me a democracy includes choosing the shape and flavour of civil society. It’s what I believe. I would never march in defense of a skin head’s choice to rally their hate around a targeted group of people. Never. Nor do I give a rat’s ass that Savage was denied entry into another country. I wouldn’t spend one ounce of energy defending him.
yo … “That isn’t freedom.”
Freedom is America. Sorry, I keep forgetting. So much evidence to the contrary. Maybe a little water in my nose will help me remember?
The dessert shimmers in the light.
“yo mama’s” version of “freedom” is shredding the US Constitution and burning the Bill of Rights.
Hey, “yo mama”, right wingers literally allowed Republican President Bush to assert the power of pointing to any American Citizen and labeling them “enemy combatant” after which the President can throw them into a prison hole for years and torture them without even charging them. Republican President Bush essentially asserted that he could do this for as long he wants and without Judiciary oversight.
Those powers that Republican President Bush didn’t disappear when he left office.
That’s what neo-rightwing “freedom” degenerated into under a Republican President.
If right wingers were serious about “freedom” they would criminally prosecute former Republican President Bush for as much as possible to try to make sure that those assertions of Monarchical power are never asserted again.
Amazing how everything, in Newsy’s world, eventually leads back to “BUSH IS EEEEVIL AND EVERYTHING’S HIS FAULT AND IF WE JUST LOCKED HIM UP EVERYTHING WOULD BE SUNSHINE AND FLOWERS AND EVERYONE WOULD LOVE US!!!!!”
Go look at the “1/20/09″ sticker on your car, Newsy, then look at a calendar. That was almost 4 months ago.
And cb, no one is saying that England doesn’t have the right to ban Savage, nor are we saying that Canada can’t decide that “freedom of speech” isn’t really that important. But we’re Americans, talking in an American forum, and we’re using our rights to point out how craven and stupid and pointless those actions are.
Because that’s how freedom rolls, cb. As much as Newsy irritates me and his ravings make little sense (he seems to think that volume and number of words increases the weight of his arguments), I’m not about to call for him to be silenced.
There’s an old saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Likewise, to restrict a fundamental Constitutional right, we demand a huge, huge standard.
Naturally, that right is recognized by the United States Constitution, which holds no sway in other nations. But its conceit is that it doesn’t grant rights, it merely recognizes rights that are innate to all human beings.
Even hosers like you, cb.
J.
There’s an old saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Likewise, to restrict a fundamental Constitutional right, we demand a huge, huge standard.
Then you turn around and champion illegally detaining and waterboarding people. Smooth move.
Hey JTP, I didn’t know that they still publish Cole’s Notes? That was a good little essay for a Grade Six assignment on “Why is America Great?”
Thing on you list to learn:
1) Historical Context
2) Social Context
3) God is Dead
4) Hermeneutics
5) Human Nature
Start there and then add. It’s liberating thinking freely. Try it.
What’s the point of free thought, cb, without being able to speak those thoughts freely?
In this example, “historical context,” “social context,” and “human nature” means that “certain people who don’t think God is dead just might go crazy, killing people and destroying things, if you say what you want to say, so we’re going to keep you from speaking.”
Why can’t you just admit that the application of your “human rights laws” here are motivated by fear, cb? That there’s only one major religion that has adherents that routinely engage in violence in defense of slights to their faith? That there’s only one major religion where one has to worry about being beheaded over such profound matters as DRAWING CARTOONS.
J.
And which religion is that?
cb, ask Daniel Pearl.
But beheading isn’t the only method. They have other ways of going after their critics. Ask Theo Van Gogh. Or Pym Fortuyn.
Whoops, you can’t. They were all murdered. Murdered for some kind of offense against “that” religion.
Perhaps you might be able to track down Salman Rushdie — he’s still alive, at last check.
J.
How about a series of lynching cartoons, or holocaust cartoons, or rape cartoons
Go for it. These seems to be what you don’t get. You’re free to be a repugnant ass. I don’t have to endorse your expression, but you’re free to make it.
He used hate speech to get to power and then silenced the opposition.
Yes, and the problem was the violence part of the equation. In America we’ve had guys pushing things as virulent as Hitler, if not even worse. They’re free to do so because such ideas can’t compete in a free market of speech. Having the government silence people because of what a listener might draw from it is the very definition of a slippery slope.
Can’t wait until the WORLD COURT gets the bastards that ruled your country for the past 8 years.
Not exactly sure how that’s possible, since we haven’t signed on. If Bush & Co. face any future legal issues (unlikely) it’ll be here.
We are free, thank you very much.
But you aren’t, when it comes to making commentary that might offend someone.
In fact, Hitler wouldn’t have gotten anywhere if he hadn’t been extremely effective at competing with opposing voices.
Yes, and when he started using force the rest of the world kicked his ass.
News Ref: So “Sean D. Martin” feels a need to try to provoke with “words and print” a tinderbox region where American troops are at risk?
First, I sign everything I post with my real name. So no need to put it in quotes, “News Reference”.
Second, I never said we should try to provoke let alone said I felt a “need” to do so, and I don’t think anyone said the cartoons were “intentionally designed to endanger American troops”. What I did say is that we shouldn’t let children be in charge. But if you find that actually to difficult to understand or too hard to disagree with, by all means, go ahead and make something up. Wouldn’t want you to strain yourself.
“cb, ask Daniel Pearl.”
I’m asking you.
“Yes, and when he started using force the rest of the world kicked his ass.”
He’d been using force and killing Jews for a very long time before the USA joined the ass kicking party. If I recall.
“We are free, thank you very much.
But you aren’t, when it comes to making commentary that might offend someone.”
We protect all our citizens, we try not to scapegoat. We here nip aspiring Hitlers in the bud. You wait till they’ve murdered, and then come along for the ride. You are a scared people, you’re scared of the OTHER, you’re scared of Cuba and every other peoples who choose a life different than your own. If you were as strong as you think you are, you’d leave the rest of the world alone.
We have the capacity of discretion, a uniquely adult ability that is sometimes sadly missing in your world. Look around dude.
“Can’t wait until the WORLD COURT gets the bastards that ruled your country for the past 8 years.
Not exactly sure how that’s possible, since we haven’t signed on. If Bush & Co. face any future legal issues (unlikely) it’ll be here.”
Where ever it happens, as long as it does. Lots of countries haven’t signed on to the American’s version of democracy and that’s never stopped USA from invading in some fashion. So, if you haven’t signed on the World Court and Bush and Co. get busted, then you’ll know how it feels to have someone’s values shoved down you throats. Just a thought.
This is what I hear about how it works over there:
Lets have slavery (for example) for about 400 hundred years, then we’ll all talk about it, then it will stop because of public ridicule and painting mustaches on hate mongers at hate rallies.
Did I get it right?
canadian bacon: We here nip aspiring Hitlers in the bud.
Some crux of the matter right there. At what point does the “aspiring” become illegal and need to be nipped?
Should someone be arrested because they said “Hitler had the right idea”, or is simply saying that insufficient and some actual action (or call to action) have to happen?
(continuing in hopes of being clear)
Because it seems to me that a lot of folks who “aspire” to something never get anywhere close to actually doing anything towards it. And if aspiration is to be punished, there are going to be very few folks left.
Good points all of them; thoughtful. I’m not sure how to answer but I have a question for you in the hopes that your answer might clarify my shaky position.
When do you think Hitler should have been stopped?
Before the Reichstag fire. He should have never had access to the Keiser.
cb, the real questions are: who decides what is “too far,” who decides how it is enforced, and who decides what the penalties are?
Oh, and fine, I’ll say it. The religion which has adherents who are most willing and eager to kill others is Islam.
By the way, you’ve reminded me of one of my favorite questions:
Does a non-Muslim living in a nation that is not officially governed by Muslim law have the right to not obey Muslim law? The strictures against drawing or publishing cartoons about Mohammed is purely an Islamic religious doctrine. Denmark doesn’t recognize “blasphemy against Islam” as a crime. Neither does the United States.
Apparently Canada does.
J.
Good questions: who decides where you live?
Who decides against child porn? Who decides that murder is wrong? Who decides to go to war? Who decides not to go? You tell me.
Do I like what happened in Denmark? No. I was furious as you over it. Should we then turn around and mock other believers of that faith for a savage act? NO. Nothing gained by doing so unless perhaps you’re trying to justify an illegal invasion of a sovereign country. Unless you need to turn a whole bunch of innocent people with beliefs not your own, into enemies.
“cb, the real questions are: who decides what is “too far,” who decides how it is enforced, and who decides what the penalties are?”
We do.
“We do.”
Nothing like the tyranny of the majority, lording it over the minority. All rights are negotiable, if you can swing 50% plus one of the electorate.
No, thanks.
Oh, and the point of the Mohammed cartoons was, as I understood it, to demonstrate that the rules of Islam are not legally binding on non-Muslims in countries not governed by Muslim law. That’s a very important point — one that apparently doesn’t hold true in Canada, where the government is enforcing Islamic law against non-Muslims.
Would you care to cite some examples, cb, where your “human rights” star chambers have
persecutedprosecuted people for offending the sensibilities of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Animists, or some other non-Muslim faith?I stand by my earlier assertion: the “respect” accorded Islam by these star chambers is based not on civilized beliefs, but on fear — and fear that is well grounded in reality.
There are terms for those who submit in the face of threats of violence, cb. I’m sure you’ve heard some of them.
J.
“Oh, and the point of the Mohammed cartoons was, as I understood it, to demonstrate that the rules of Islam are not legally binding on non-Muslims in countries not governed by Muslim law.”
We already now that – the cartoon doesn’t clarify anything. But apparently it scares you so much that you’re willing to insult innocent people over and over again, even after they were traumatized by what a handful of Muslims did to your ego.
“That’s a very important point — one that apparently doesn’t hold true in Canada, where the government is enforcing Islamic law against non-Muslims.”
We enforce many laws here, Islamic Law is not one of them. But we will protect innocent Muslims from the tyranny of the PETTY.
“There are terms for those who submit in the face of threats of violence, cb. I’m sure you’ve heard some of them.”
Just when I thought that you finally put the little flags away and turned down the marching bugle music, you bring out the Heritage Foundation flags that they’re giving away for free and you turn up the volume on your broken stereo. Sad, really sad.
I guess you need to insult me the same way you insult Muslims to show the world that you’re not Canadian? Amateur. Scary, but an amateur non the less.
We here nip aspiring Hitlers in the bud.
And as I keep saying – who decides who the Hitlers are? I don’t like a lot of things Republicans say. Because we have a Democratic gov’t now, do I get to use the power of the government to shut them up? Of course not. a) Because its wrong and b) Because I don’t want them to have that power when they’re in power.
Lets have slavery (for example) for about 400 hundred years, then we’ll all talk about it, then it will stop because of public ridicule and painting mustaches on hate mongers at hate rallies.
You seem to now be saying that because America and other countries got things amazingly horrifically wrong at some point in the past we should just throw out our principles. That’s right out of the Bush playbook, my friend. It’s the kind of thinking that gets us into “not as bad as Saddam” territory.
The religion which has adherents who are most willing and eager to kill others is Islam.
And this is where Jay Tea goes back into conservative stupidity, ignoring the many people killed as a result of Christianity. As I’ve said, our current flareups are Muslim, in the past they were Christian, in the future it’ll be one of those again or someone new. Religion does that.
Who decides against child porn? Who decides that murder is wrong?
Those are both clear cases where the rights of someone else infringe or harm another. Physical harm is a galaxy away from being offended.
“Because we have a Democratic gov’t now, do I get to use the power of the government to shut them up? Of course not. a) Because its wrong and b) Because I don’t want them to have that power when they’re in power.”
Do you really think I’m saying that?
“You seem to now be saying that because America and other countries got things amazingly horrifically wrong at some point in the past we should just throw out our principles. That’s right out of the Bush playbook, my friend. It’s the kind of thinking that gets us into “not as bad as Saddam” territory.”
No, I’m just saying that even with a piece of paper called the Constitution, with all its god bestowing sanctities, people commit atrocities and that you shouldn’t wave your little flag in the air when another country chooses to live its own way, especially another democratic country. Sorry for using such an extreme example.
“Who decides against child porn? Who decides that murder is wrong?
Those are both clear cases where the rights of someone else infringe or harm another. Physical harm is a galaxy away from being offended.”
Calling for the death of millions of Muslims is a pretty clear case to me; why not you?
“The religion which has adherents who are most willing and eager to kill others is Islam.
And this is where Jay Tea goes back into conservative stupidity, ignoring the many people killed as a result of Christianity. As I’ve said, our current flareups are Muslim, in the past they were Christian, in the future it’ll be one of those again or someone new. Religion does that.”
That’s what I was getting at but he skirted the question and it took him two or three times to say what he implied throughout.
One more thing OW:
re my reference to slavery and the constitution. Just to clarify and to show that I’m not being flippant. Where I live was part of the underground railway back in the day and there are picture of the early black refugees working on their farms, with their children. Street names are named after them and their descendant are still here. My point – we never had the piece of paper that was getting waved around in the US at the time, enshrining all sorts of rights etc to some and not others, but people sometimes know whats right and what’s wrong. At the same time, we interned Japanese people and took all of their fishing boats and land years later.
And we also interned Italians during the same war.
“The religion which has adherents who are most willing and eager to kill others is Islam.”
And this is where Jay Tea goes back into conservative stupidity, ignoring the many people killed as a result of Christianity. As I’ve said, our current flareups are Muslim, in the past they were Christian, in the future it’ll be one of those again or someone new. Religion does that.
(Fixed your quote marks for you.
Yes, I’m ignoring the millions who were persecuted and killed by Christians in the name of Christ. And you know why?
Because I’m talking about TODAY. About TODAY’s threats.
Judaism had its aggressive period, when it conquered the Holy Land. Then it grew the fuck up.
Christianity had its aggressive period, in the Middle Ages through the Renaissance. Then it grew the fuck up.
It’s time for Islam to grow the fuck up.
I was implying things because I didn’t want to imply that in addition to being totally wrong, you were also totally stupid. I regret that now.
Oh, and if you inferred that I was saying you’d been called a coward before, I apologize. That was not my intention, merely that you were familiar with the terms generally.
At least, that was not my intention then. Now, it is.
You, sir, are a coward and a craven. You are intimidated by a small group of savages who loudly proclaim that they will kill those who they perceive as insulting their religion, and you wrap it in high moral principles, saying that you are showing “respect” for them — while showing not a whit of respect for those who don’t threaten violence.
You proudly stand up against Nazis, especially those who’ve been dead for well over half a century, but bow before those who would love nothing more than to unleash a new Holocaust. You would muzzle those who dare to print cartoons, while saying nothing about those who urge their followers to kill Jews, those “sons of pigs and dogs.” You won’t speak out against those who brutally oppress women, even killing them in the name of “honor.”
You feel free to rail against “conservatives” and “Christians” because you know that they won’t try to kill you over it. (The irony here is that I don’t consider myself either conservative or Christian, and therefore unbound by whatever inhibitions you think bind their actions. Fortunately, I have my own sense of morality, responsibility, self-restraint, and maturity (as well as an exceptional laziness) that restricts my ire towards you to this forum.
Keep telling yourself that your position against “hate speech against Muslims” such as publishing cartoons is solely motivated by morality, and not fear. You might convince one or two people. Hell, you might even convince yourself.
But the truth is flagrantly clear to most people.
J.
LOL.