Got that from Sean Hannity, did you?

I’m arguing that while people can choose to be persuaded by what someone else says* and make a decision, based on that speech, to take action, the responsibility for the choice, decision and action rest solely with the person who makes them. The person who merely said something is responsible only for having said it — not for how other people interpret it or take action based on it.

I see where you’re going, though: if speaker A can’t be held responsible for the deeds of actor B, how can making a bad argument (speech) be responsible for censorship (action)? Well, of course, it can’t. People who censor are responsible for censorship, while people who argue in favor of it are merely stating an opinion. That’s their prerogative, and yours if you choose to take it. I choose to make a different argument, because I don’t think bad arguments should go unchallenged.

* I admit there is some gray area here when it comes to brainwashing, a la Manson. Usually, though, that kind of verbal persuasion carries with it a threat of violence, which is persuasive in a totally different way. For example, a person saying to you “I think you should kill the President” is making a verbal argument that you’re free to disregard; if they’re saying that while pointing a gun at your head, that’s a totally different argument.

Well yeah. Stripping out the nuance is the only way to get to the nub of the matter. You’re arguing that speech has influence over action except when it doesn’t.

If you believe that “criticizing any statement based on the totally hypothetical possibility that it might enable” censorship, you’re hoist by your own rhetorical petard.

Someone’s been taking bogus analogy lessons from Save Farris.

Look Felix, I promise to stand with you shoulder-to-shoulder on the barricades if the thought police come after either Pastor Anderson or David Byrne. Till then, I will say what I think which is that it was all downhill for the Heads after ’77 and that it’s disturbing that a supposedly Christian pastor would wish a painful death upon the president, especially when his followers are in the habit of carrying assault rifles to political debates.

No more than listening to the Talking Heads might lead a person to burn down the house.

You do believe that criticism of such statements might lead a government to impose censorship?

Way to strip the nuance out of my argument. I believe that criticizing any statement based on the totally hypothetical possibility that it might convince someone to commit a violent act is the kind of faulty reasoning that enables people to justify censorship.

Wilbur: [B]ecause we -must- allow our fellow citizens the freedom to be stupid, it is incumbent upon us to be vigilant against any unpleasant consequences that may arise from that stupidity.

Any unpleasant consequences that may arise? That’s a whole lot of vigilance, man. And considering the vast quantity of stupid out there, I don’t see how you’re going to have time to do anything else ever again.

Part of that vigilance is calling out such bastards publicly, which is what Felix seems to object to for some vague and unfortunate reason.

(shrug) I guess it goes without saying that I find my own objections clear and reasonable, right? I suppose they might be confusing if you don’t read them carefully, but I really do think I’m being quite specific. I am all for calling the bastards out; it’s one of the main reasons I enjoy reading Oliver and watching Maddow. However, it’s not only not helpful but actually detrimental to call them out based on specious reasoning. Particularly when that same flavor of specious reasoning is so frequently employed by the very bastards we rail against.

You are embracing Anderson, just like you embrace Palin, no matter how loony the garbage is that comes out of her mouth, because you think she riles us up into a frenzy. Maybe you do think Anderson’s a sick mo’fo with some part of your head, but a bigger part of your head is thinkin’ “he’s a useful mo’fo’.”

So you don’t have an answer? Gotcha.

How can someone “damn America”? That makes no sense.
–Zython

Zython, I’d answer that, but you’re more of a lowlife than Pastor Anderson. At least he’s honest about who he is.

Please don’t give me any credit for pointing out the obvious. That’s almost worse than the damning with feint praise that Felix Helix twice gave me, even though I did agree with him.

How can someone “damn America”? That makes no sense.

I don’t really want Anderson to keep saying that sort of thing, both because it is potentially dangerous and because I find it really distasteful, like chartreuse shag carpeting that a wet sheepdog’s been sleeping on for ten years.

_But_ I don’t want him to be censored either, or jailed or otherwise shut up by force legal or illegal. He should be allowed to spew his hateful antithesis-of-Christian filth. I believe in a nearly exception-free interpretation of the first amendment. But because we -must- allow our fellow citizens the freedom to be stupid, it is incumbent upon us to be vigilant against any unpleasant consequences that may arise from that stupidity. Part of that vigilance is calling out such bastards publicly, which is what Felix seems to object to for some vague and unfortunate reason.

And, just as beautiful daisies grow from the rottenest cowshit, there are some good things that come from the freedom that ratfuckers like Anderson enjoy as a gift from their Creator: one such good thing is that folks like you speak up in their defense and we know better where the turkeys roost.

_That_ is what I meant to say. But credit where credit is due: score one for Dennis.

You don’t believe that a preacher urging the death of the President might lead a person to act on those wishes.

Quaker, do you believe that a preacher urging God to damn America might lead a person who happens to be in a position to do just that to act on those wishes?

You don’t believe that a preacher urging the death of the President might lead a person to act on those wishes.

You do believe that criticism of such statements might lead a government to impose censorship?

Extraordinary.

I have no problem with criticism of Anderson’s statements. For that matter, I have no problem with criticism of any statement. Yay criticism! Yay disapproval! You want to see me do it, too? Here goes: I disapprove of what Anderson said. I think he ought not to have said it. I think it’s creepy for a preacher to stand at a pulpit and wish death on anybody, and though I’m not a Christian, it seems like a perversion of Christian ideals to do so. Eeew. Ick. And so forth.

The problem I have is with criticism that is based on what these icky statements are supposedly going to lead to, i.e. actual violence. Yeah, you can make that kind of criticism too if you want — go First Amendment! — I just find it totally without merit.

I don’t see anyone here advocating censorship; I do see people implying that saying “I pray the President dies” is bad because it might result in the President actually dying. And if I believed in a Bad Santa God who listens to imprecatory prayers and doles out thunderbolt strikes in response, I might believe that, too. But I don’t believe that, and I also don’t believe that if a nutjob tries to kill the President, anyone but the nutjob should be held responsible. Certainly not some other guy who voiced some lame prayer.

No one’s advocating censorship — yet — but that’s where that kind of implication leads, eventually. Because once you accept the premise that a person’s words can be responsible for another person’s actions, it’s very easy to justify putting “reasonable” limits on words in order to prevent bad actions from happening.

You said you hope Anderson keeps talking this way.

Whatever his guilt is in saying what he said, you’d be sharing in that guilt. If something drastic happens as a result of his prayers, you said you wanted him to keep praying for it to happen.

Which is it my friend, do you want him to keep it up, or do you not? Or is this all really just political gamesmanship on your part?

Oh, so we should wait until one of nutty Anderson’s nutty followers follows through on what Anderson said to express our disapproval of what Anderson said?

Felix, there’s a light bulb dying to light up in you head. Let it!

For civilians, who are not government officials, to say, “That guy ought not to have said that,” is NOT the same as saying, “That guy ought to be prevented from saying that,” or even, “That guy ought to be arrested for saying that.”

No one here has the power, and I doubt anyone here has the inclination, to say the latter two statements. They are only saying the first.

And they are right. He ought not to have said it. Period.

Kind of the whole point of an altar, isn’t it?