I disagree with Hightower.

What you will find here is: a centrist's view of current events;
a collection of thoughts, arguments, and observations
that I have found appealing and/or amusing over the years;
and, if you choose, your civil contributions which will make it into a conversation.

He not busy bein' born, is busy dyin'. - Bob Dylan

Please refer to participants only by their designated identities.

suggestion for US citizens: When a form asks for your race, write in: -- American

Showing posts with label speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label speech. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Gay ducks


Jon Stewart and Bill Maher et. al. relentlessly ridicule Christianity and the loony left never raises a peep.

But one little quack about homosexuality and they go berserk.

Voltaire's definition of freedom of speech was:  "I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The American left's definition of freedom of speech is:  "If I disagree with you, I will call it hate speech and shut you down if I can."

I am pleased to note that several gay folks I know have publicly condemned this hypocrisy.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Hate Crimes

.
Hate crimes are in the news again.

I remember when George Bush got into trouble with the Hate Crimes people after that lynching in Texas while he was Governor. He was raked across the coals because he was opposed to Hate Crimes Legislation.

He pointed out that he had just signed death warrants for two of the perps and a life in Prison for the third. This of course was not enough for the folks who want to identify some people as special, and crimes against that group is, in some sense, more bad than against the rest of the population.

Do they want the guilty to get more than death? Do they want the extra sentence carried out before the execution or after? What is with these folks?

By the way:
Are you in favor the right of free speech?
Are you in favor of hate speech?
Do you think hate speech is included in free speech?

How did his friend describe Voltaire's views on freedom of speech: "I disagree with everything you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it!" - unless of course it is hate speech.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Dear President Obama,

I do not believe that the nature of our political discussion was the cause of the carnage in Arizona. However, many people will say that it is and I expect that you will feel obligated to say something about it. Since the nature of our national dialogue is in such a disastrous state, I would like to ask you to help us, all Americans of good will, to raise ourselves up to the challenge of beginning a new day in our national debate.

You, who have been the object of more than your fair share of hysterical and malicious rhetoric, are uniquely positioned to call for an end to this obscene level of discourse. You could begin by pointing to some things by both sides that have contributed to the degradation of our continuing national conversation in the past. However, perhaps it would work better if you took the really high ground. You might point to one or two of your own remarks which have fallen short of the civility test. For example, perhaps you should have exhorted the Hispanic Americans to recognize who their “opponents” (not their “enemies”) were.

To be successful, this effort would have to condemn all those who have staked out the extremes of our disastrous national squabble. In each of the questions we consider there are those, on each side, who try to argue their case on its merits. But there are the others, on each side, who do not. They are absolutely confident that they are right. Therefore, they are certain that anyone who opposes them must be doing so because of motivations that will not stand the light of day. From there, they slide into the mud.

Perhaps there is another class that has even baser motivations than these, but it is not necessary to postulate them. In fact, it is probably best to not even take note of them.

Thank you for reading this and I hope you find some merit in it.

Monday, December 13, 2010

website property

So Paypal and mastercard and others shut off wikileaks (good I think) and now all sorts of folks are attacking their sites because of that.

1. The government leaned on pp and mc to do that, right?

2. A website is something that is owned and is therefore property, right?
Is it not against the law to "attack" someone's website?

3 If not. Shouldn't it be?

Sunday, October 24, 2010

equal treatment 2

you should go to this link to hear the rambling justification of the firing of Juan Williams. It is here that she says that his opinions "are between him and his psychiatrist ...".

You can see Nina Totenberg's response to Krauthammer about this here

"Those who disagree with us are crazy."
Has that theme ever been seen before?
.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Freedom of Speech

(an embryonic thought)
Has any one seen any discussion of the Snyder v. Phelps SCOTUS case (about the military funerals)which took the following approach:

The funeral is in some sense a private event which has some aspects of property. The Phelps are exploiting some other peoples property to advance their otherwise allowable speech.

One can make an analogy: You have a right to burn the American flag.
But you do not have the right to burn MY American flag! That is one that happens to belong to me!

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Freedom of Speech vs Religion

Most of us in what is called the West have agreed that a religion has the right to demand a code of conduct and behavior by its followers. For about five centuries we have also agreed that a religion does not have the right to impose its code of conduct and behavior on those who do not follow that religion. In this country this is enshrined in the first amendment to the US Constitution.
Suppose we have a religion that is outside of this tradition and in certain foreign countries has (in varying degrees) merged itself with the power of the state which it uses to force all persons in those counties to abide by the code of that religion.
As long as these two principles are operating in different areas of the world, then the problems are resolvable.
What happens if some of this other religion’s practitioners decide that they have the right to demand that nonbelievers “respect their religion”? What if “respect their religion” means following a part of their code? What if they decide that this applies to Americans? What if that part of their code is in conflict with another part (speech) of that first amendment?
Even without going any further it seems to me that there is a real problem here.
But there is more. What if there is an element in that religion that is prepared to enforce that part of the code by assassination?
Does that religion have the same rights as other religions?
Do the adherents of that religion have a responsibility vis-a-vis the new Assassins?

Saturday, September 18, 2010

First Amendment

I did not participate on Draw Mohammed Day - see 5-20 but I think that we need another presidential speech on the 1st Amendment.
Note: Awlaki, who put Molly Norris on their assassination list, is himself on America's kill or capture list.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Park 51 - 6 A possible reversal

I've been waiting for the return of Imam Rauf (from what Foxnews calls “his taxpayer supported trip to the middle east”) and now he is back. I wanted to hear his calm serene view of the controversy that I had sided with him on in the 8-18 post. I was very disappointed. In an interview with CNN he said about the Park 51 project:
...
RAUF: I am extremely concerned about sensitivity. But I also have a responsibility. If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack. And I'm less concerned about the radicals in America than I'm concerned about the radicals in the Muslim world.
O'BRIEN: But isn't that also saying you're less concerned about the voices of opposition here?
RAUF: And if we do -- no, no, no, no. I'm sorry, I don't mean it that way. I meant it, the danger from the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security, to the national security of our troops.
I have a niece who works in the Army and served in Iraq. The concern for American citizens who live and work and travel overseas will increasingly be compromised if the radicals are strengthened. And if we do move, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit, and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.

He equates the “radicals in America” and the “radicals in the Muslim world”. It seems clear that by the first he means those who oppose his project by the second he means Muslim terrorists. It seems to be quite clearly an attempt to win an argument by intimidation. “If I can't build Park 51 then Muslims will kill Americans.”
I think that at best he has exhibited some very bad judgment. When I come to this kind of conclusion that (some would say) leans to one side I always want to check what the other side is saying. The quotes above are from Media Matters which tells me that “if Rauf is threatening us, then so was Petraeus”. Which means MM can't tell the difference between a) burning the Quran and b) saying no to something that a Muslim wants to do. That is pretty sad.
I will be interested to see Rauf's future remarks.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Liberty's response

Buy or read a Quran this Saturday!!
That is the proper response to the Florida book burner!
This suggestion from NPR could have millions of people doing that as a contrast to a tiny group of book burners.