There have been many proposed responses to the Giffords shooting. Some of them are dumber than others, but all are stupid, especially the idea that we should be limiting freedom of speech. That's a horrible idea.
Here are few of the proposed responses to the Giffords shooting:
How does a shooting at a grocery store lead to the idea that we need to protect the Congress floor from tourists. . . the same tourists who are already searched before they enter the building? There is no logic here. And if this sounds like the Cone of Silence to you or the Ape House at the San Diego Zoo, then you’re smarter than Dan Burton.• Encase the entire House and Senate floor with Plexiglass to stop tourists from throwing something at the Congress (and presumably keep Congress from throwing poop back). ~Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind.
For starters, these “high-profile public officials” move around. Are you seriously going to arrest people who have a right to carry a gun the moment a Congresscritter hops on a bus with them? Secondly, if someone wants to kill a Congresscritter, they aren’t going to care about a 1,000 feet gun-ban zone. By definition, laws do not deter these people. All this will do is disarm those who might save the Congresscritter.• Ban the carrying of a firearm within 1,000 feet of any “high-profile” public officials. ~Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.
Let me repeat, people who want to assassinate politicians do not care about the law. Moreover, pot hardly inspires people to violence. To the contrary, it inspires laziness and the munchies. Poor thinking Dave. Dave’s not home man.• The federal government should impose tougher drug laws because the Tucson shooter smoked pot. ~David Frum, Hack
Right, because political oppression and silencing the opposition keeps paranoids from deciding to kill people, and if we can just force people to stop disagreeing it would be a wonderful world.• Use the Federal Communication Commission to force Rush Limbaugh off the air. ~Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C.
Down with free speech! Ok, let's hit this issue of curtailing free speech straight up:• Make it illegal to say things that might be considered ‘threatening’ about lawmakers. ~Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa.
First, the Constitution forbids it, thank God. End of argument.
Secondly, what gives anyone the right to decide what another may say or think? And if we’re going to play that game, what makes you think you’re going to get to decide what it is that everyone else says or thinks?
Third, how does it make any sense to limit free speech when there’s no evidence that any speech incited this guy to do the shooting? He’s a nut. He shot her because he didn’t like the answer she gave to a nonsense question he asked in 2007.
Fourth, where do we draw the line? The New York Times drew a target on Peyton Manning. Was that hate speech? Should we just ban the symbol or also the word “target” or both? Or should we only ban it when it’s used against a person, as in “he’s the target of this investigation”? Do we only ban words that involve shooting? What about words that involve blowing things up? What about words that imply stabbings? Or beatings? Or do we ban beating words only when they include a hint of death? Do we ban “beat him within an inch of his life” or just “beat him to death”? What about words that have become euphemisms? “Take out” usually refers to Chinese food, but we should probably ban that in case it gets used to mean a person. What about “I hate”? That’s dehumanizing and it implies feelings of violence and aggression, should we ban that?
What about “f*ck the cops?” That clearly implies a threat of violence against the police. So do we ban rap music? What about films that inspire violence? A film about an assassination or a bombing could set the unstable off. So could a Discovery Channel show about assassinations, now that I think about it. And if we are going to ban movie violence, how do we decide which kind of movie violence will inspire violence? How about a slap in a romantic comedy? What about cartoon violence? What if the next killer kills because a non-violent cartoon dog told him too? Do we ban cartoon dogs? What about cartoon cats? John Hinckley wanted to get Jodi Foster’s attention, should we ban anyone who can get the attention of a crazy person? Maybe Letterman should be taken off the air, he has a stalker, so there must be something about him that inspires crazy people -- that could cause the unstable to kill someone.
Where do we stop?
Fifth and finally, why are we even drawing lines at all? There are 308 million Americans who did nothing wrong this last weekend, so why are we going to punish them by forcing them to change the way they think and speak and act, by neutering their culture and language, by talking away their entertainment and their rights, just because of the actions of one insane person? I’m sure someone drove drunk too, should be ban cars or alcohol?
If we go down that road, aren't we eventually going to ban everything?
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Ban Free Speech, Are You Kidding?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
First, the Constitution forbids it, thank God. End of argument.
Absolutely!
Amendment Number 2 was to protect the people from the government.
Yes what was that phrase, something like "Congress shall make no law..."! Odd watching the depths they sink too when grasping for lofty political heights. Their love of agenda at all costs is culminating in political suicide and still they don't get it - THAT - 'We The People' - have had enough!!
Not much to say on this one. The concept is so over the top as to be beyond ludicrous. Other than the fact we must continue to be vigilant because there are some on the opposite side of the political expression that truly want to silence opposition. Interestingly, when people bring up comparisons in the extreme (i.e. Trotsky show trials or 1984, or banana dictatorship,) it is easy for many to scoff and laugh it off as ridiculous. Reality is that it is easy to die the death of 1,000 cuts.
The left and leftist media will want to try and keep Tucson and curbing speech on stage as long as possible to keep Republicans on the defensive. Events work against us here because even Fox loves a story with "legs" since it keeps viewership up. I'm not trying to disrespect the victims, but do not want Mark Penn to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Exactly. Peter King really disappointed me with this proposal, since I've generally seen him as one of the more sensible Republicans, especially where national defense is concerned. Guess that emphasis might have made him overreact a bit--hope that's all it is.
Palin's video message yesterday had some very good things to say about this issue and why preserving free speech is so important. Unfortunately, most people will never be aware of it now, because the idiots have made two words from that entire message the issue.
Ack, didn't get my whole name typed because I accidentally hit the Enter button. Oh well, you know it's me.
Actually someone pointed out that we would actually have to ban Target as their logo is a bullseye...
ACG, Nice new avatar! As for the Amendments, I couldn't agree more. Talk about a far-sighted group of men to put those restrictions in the Constitution! They must have known that we would eventually end up with a government of idiots!
DCAlleyKat, I agree completely, they will use anything they can to promote their agenda. Be it all out socialism or just simple "why doesn't the government fix things?"
And neither groups is at all far sighted. They just react to whatever is going on and don't think at all how this will affect the country. That's why this is such an easy equation for them: if we ban hate speech, then hate goes away. Wrong. It just hides. And in the process of banning "hate speech" (whatever that is), you generate much more as the power of the state comes crashing down on people.
Jed, I think you're right. It's very easy for them to say, "but those people were evil and they wanted to control people, we just want to stop people from being evil." That makes a lot of sense to people who don't bother to think about what their actions mean. Both groups advocate control, both groups want to tell others what they can do and how they can do. And the "can't we just force everyone to get along" group hasn't thought about what they will need to ban or what they will do to people when they resist. That's where a liberal control-freak turns into a murder.
You're right about the media too. Some want to exploit this for political reasons, i.e. the Politico, and some want to exploit it for ratings, FOX. We are poorly served by our media that has been creating and stoking the very atmosphere of hate everyone is complaining about since Crossfire first aired. These days, you can't watch the news without people attacking each other. Are we to believe that's had no effect on ratcheting up the anger?
T_Rav, It was disappointing to see any Republicans proposing these proposals. If anyone needs to keep a clear head at this point, it's the Republicans.
But I have to admit that I did find the whole "encase them in Plexiglass idea to be the most ludicrous. Maybe the should all have to drive around in Pope-mobiles and have aides carrying large glass walls wherever they go?
(I figured it was you, but I thought your new name was Rav:-T, the Untaxable Being? ;-) )
Bev, That's just one of a million corporate images that would probably fall into a law that bans "images of violence." Our whole culture represents every aspect of our culture, good and bad. That include love, hate, our history of violence, our aspirations for the future, our artistic achievements, our artistic failures.... all of it. It's all jumbled together and intertwined.
You can't yank one part of our culture of our culture without destroying the whole thing.
I need to step out for an hour or so, but I'll be bad. So I'm not ignoring you if I don't respond right away.
Andrew, I tried it for a while, but I don't think Mary, who I'm now convinced has some kind of multiple personality disorder, thought that was very funny. And of course I don't want to offend anyone.
"We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future." ~ BO
I got a very Professor Umbridge feeling from his speech in light of all the things you mentioned, only some of which I had heard of before now. The only "old assumptions" I hear being challenged are in the Bill of Rights.
The only limitation on free speech has been clearly delineated by the Supreme Court, and the damned fools in Congress should know it. "Clear and present danger." This requires the confluence of exhortation to unlawful violence, and the immediate capacity to carry it out. None of these proposals even come close to addressing that facet of this current tragedy. In fact, the only public official who knew or should have known of Loughner's propensity for violence and the substantial possibility that he might carry it out is the jerk Sheriff of Pima County. And still, it had nothing to do with speech, free or otherwise.
Much of the gnashing of teeth and wailing about the "climate of violence and hate" is an appalling Democratic ploy to reverse the results of the recent election and keep the Republicans from gutting Obamacare. If you can't win the debate, change the topic. Disgusting.
T_Rav, That would explain the statement about being "very familiar with schizophrenia." I haven't had a chance to see her last, but I'll check it out in a few minutes.
But the sad truth is that even without a mental problem, some people simply will never learn. They have simply made up their minds and are thereafter immune to facts.
JG, That's how it sounds to me, it sounds like he wants to challenge the assumptions we simple folk have about our "freedoms." Maybe they aren't worth having if 1 out of 308 million of us abuse them?
Until his speech last night, I actually thought he was doing a good job. His statements were short, factual, nonpartisan and calming. Last night he started talking about this vague -- we need to remake society stuff that should scare anyone.
And even if we assume good faith on his part (which I don't), then we should still be troubled that he thinks that we should start remaking society on the basis of one random act. Thinking like that leads to attempts to remake mankind in Barack's image, that is truly dangerous stuff.
Lawhawk, Well said -- an appalling Democratic ploy. That's exactly what this has been. This has been an attempt to exploit a rare tragedy so as to stifle the opposition. And you see this when they have the nerve to complain about hate speech and then engage in it in the same sentence. They want to shut up anyone who disagrees with them and then continue on their merry way calling for the deaths of people like Palin and Rush and Beck.
And you're absolutely right about the Sheriff. Someone said the other day that perhaps he's protesting a little too much, and I think they were absolutely right. He's been blasting everyone else because it's becoming clear that his department has a chance to intervene long before this happened and just blew it.
Lawhawk and Andrew - The reason the good Sheriff is backing off is that it has come to light that Mr. Loughner had several run-ins with the Sheriff's department before this incident. He had made threats to radio hosts and other officials several times before Sat. None of whom were Rep. Giffords, btw.
On another note - You might be interested to know the topic of conversation at my very liberal law firm this morning was on Obama's speech last night. And everyone agreed that it was inappropriate and overblown. The message got overshadowed by the venue and was more akin to a Pep Rally than a solemn memorial. And that was with no prompting from me I assure you.
Sorry Andrew - you just said that...
I'm embarrassed that some of these stupid ideas are being proposed by Republicans. And to all of the Congress I say this: Welcome to the world the rest of us have to live in. And if you don't like it, you can resign (no one is forcing you to serve in Congress.) If you're such a coward and think you deserve special treatment, then you should step aside and let someone else take your place who is more worthy of the office.
Where was all the hate and wanting to quiet Muslim religious freedoms after Fort Hood.
Why didn't bo go there and help heal the anguish for the families and the Nation?
No one wanted to ban anyone from practicing Islam. Even though a lot of people have illustrated some components of Islam that are crazy.
Bev, I'm shocked that you don't read all my comments... shocked! ;-) (just kidding)
To add something to this Sheriff issue: it turns out that in Arizona anyone can request a mental examination of anyone else (in most states it's limited to courts or relatives). That means the Sheriff had all the power he needed to demand a mental health examination. Everyone agrees that this guy was spouting nonsense, talking to himself, and just plain bizarre. It is becoming very clear that the Sheriff should have demanded a mental health exam, which would have gotten this guy into treatment, which might have prevented this shooting. That is the first line of blame in this entire affair.
And there's where we should be looking anyways, not at stopping free speech or taking away guns, but how do we deal with the mentally ill? In the 1970s, we set them all loose upon the streets and they became the homeless. Maybe it's time that we re-examine this and start doing more to protect these people from themselves, and thereby protect the innocent from them.
On the law firm, that's a bad sign if liberals are being put off by the venue. I think you're instincts were right on last night, the whole thing seems inappropriate.
Pitts, You know they think of themselves as special. I too am embarrassed that Republicans are offering some of these ideas, but I will admit that I like the "Cone of Silence" idea. I'm all for encasing the entire Congress in plastic (or cement) and leaving them there! :-)
And as Bev said last night, if you are insane and you own a cement or plastics factor, that was a joke and was not meant to be acted on!
(Bev, I'm still laughing about your "feet to the fire" disclaimer!)
Tom, That's the million dollar question. Why can't Obama get himself worked up about Islamic violence against Americans?
T_Rav, I think she's nuts.
Thanks Andrew, it's my company avatar.
careful andrew, you are getting very close to the BAN line. next it will be you and your words that incite people to THINK. can't have that...
Andrew, nice smackdown on Mary. Unfortunately, I think she probably flew the coop after unloading on us evil conservatives. Certainly wouldn't want to be exposed to dangerous ideas that differ from her own.
As for Sheriff Dupnik, I'm just glad it's slowly occurring to him that he shoved his foot all the way into his mouth. Maybe now he'll finally shut up and stick to police work--even though he should really recuse himself from the investigation altogether.
Okay, who the heck is "Mary"??
ACG, Company? What are you selling or making?
Patti, I live for challenging false boundaries! :-)
T_Rav, We'll see. People like the Sheriff rarely admit they're wrong. But it would be nice to see him act a lot more professionally.
Hopefully, the FBI will do a better job.
Bev, Mary is a visitor who came to see what we conservatives could find in the way of leftist hate speech. Or, said more accurately, to tell us that we're the real haters and racists and monsters. T_Rav and I have been trying to explain to her why she's oh so wrong about the world, but she's determined not to listen.
If you want to see the exchange, here's the link: LINK.
I think you'll get a kick out of why she thinks anyone who hates grammar must be a conservative. It's truly whacko -- indeed, check out T_Rav's discussion of the guy she tries to tag us with (David Miller), and why death threats against Bush were justified because he was "an idiot and an asshole."
It is worth a read.
Wow, Andrew, just WOW! How did I miss this? Thanks...
Bev, Incredible, isn't it? I love the idea that by adding colons and hyphens to our name, we can become untaxable beings. Talk about crazy!
You probably missed it because she came very late to the discussion. I think two other articles were up before she even commented the first time.
"If we go down that road, aren't we eventually going to ban everything?"
You say this like it's a BAD thing! They know better than the uneducated, regular joe, doncha know?
(I'm getting a tad freaked out by how often I think of the worldview in Demolition Man - fun, goofy movie w/ some deep & frightening ideas: it is not good for you, therefore bad for you, therefore illegal))
off topic (like that's unusual)...
thanks for the means test definition. I kept seeing the phrase as an individual statement without any more context and couldn't get the particular meaning.
if means testing for Mcare was implemented, some insurance companies could really move in and clean up - I realize that older folks are a worse risk, but surely the private sector could offer something helpful - but I think we'd have to have the gov't more out of the way (a direction with which the gov't seems unfamiliar) in a lot of other areas first in order to allow that pot to open up and be worth the risk to the private sector.
thanks again!
rlaWTX, The problem is that many people actually don't think it's a bad idea if we start banning everything. They really think we can ban our way to togetherness.... as sick as that sounds. But they really believe that if we can just ban everything that makes us different from each other, then we will all be happy together.
You're welcome on the definition. Whether it's fair or not to means test something like social security (where people have paid into their entire lives), I think means testing is coming. There just isn't enough money left to go around to everybody, so they're going to start pulling people out of the system if they can afford to go private.
Could an insurance firm clean up on this? I don't know. I guess it depends on what they charge? I think it will be a very delicate balancing act for them because if they charge too much, then the government will step in an regulate them.
Great demonstration of the problems that would be faced with trying to figure out how to ban free speech, and you're right -- only one person broke the law last weekend, so why should we punish everyone else? I don't think they have an answer for that!
Ed, This issue is wrong on so many levels, from the practical to the theoretical to the moral. But to the unthinking, it sounds very easy to say "just ban the bad parts."
Post a Comment