# I pit the statement from the US Embassy in Cairo **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 11, 2012, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432 "2012-09-11T21:24:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![kwimby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dc4da7/32.png) [@kwimby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kwimby)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/401 "2012-09-18T17:43:41Z")
I take it you are unfamiliar with the term “mutually exclusive.” There is no relationship bewteen “supporting free speech” and “condemning hate speech.” They are mutually exclusive, unrelated topics. Please continue clouding your confusion with some magnanimous view of why terrorism and hate speech are wrongly obstructed by free speech. By all means, continue… :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/402 "2012-09-18T17:45:55Z")
So if you support the Republican Party, you think every Republican everywhere is great? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/403 "2012-09-18T18:23:40Z")
> [@kwimby](#): > > I take it you are unfamiliar with the term “mutually exclusive.” I’m not, but apparently you are, since you use the term incorrectly. > [@kwimby](#): > > There is no relationship bewteen “supporting free speech” and “condemning hate speech.” > > They are mutually exclusive, unrelated topics. No, “mutually exclusive” means that either one literally **excludes** the other: i.e., they cannot coexist. But it is perfectly possible to support free speech while simultaneously condemning hate speech. The two coexist just fine; they’re not mutually exclusive. Or it may be that you’re mixing up “condemning” with anti-free-speech reactions like “banning” or “censoring”. “Condemning” in the context of speech acts just means criticizing, denouncing or repudiating, not legally suppressing. It’s not like “condemning” a building: if a building is officially condemned that means you’re legally required to get rid of it. But when speech is condemned, that just means that whoever’s condemning it disapproves of it. So, **kwimby** , either you don’t really understand the term “condemning” or you don’t really understand the term “mutually exclusive” (or possibly both, of course). Either way, it looks as though a serious discussion of somewhat complex issues concerning the significance and interactions of various types of speech is probably not the best place for you, and we appreciate your graceful withdrawal. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/404 "2012-09-18T18:23:56Z")
> [@kwimby](#): > > So this is now being used as an excuse for an intellectual exercise in 1st amendment revisionism. Are you fucking kidding me? > > Congratulations! Here’s your sign. I think I agree, if I understand you correctly. We (in the US) shiould not have to censor ourselves and should not be censored, based on the “delicate sensibilities” of religious fanatics, terrorists, and murderers. Ever. If there were no film, some other “excuse” would have been used. So the film does not matter at all. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/405 "2012-09-18T18:35:49Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I think I agree, if I understand you correctly. We (in the US) shiould not have to censor ourselves and should not be censored, based on the “delicate sensibilities” of religious fanatics, terrorists, and murderers. Ever. Nobody’s suggesting that anybody’s speech be censored. Objecting to offensive religious bigotry, and opining that people who are promulgating offensive religious bigotry should have the common sense and decency not to, is not censorship. Offensive insults directed at large groups of people do not suddenly become praiseworthy or immune from criticism just because a small subset of the targeted group overreacts to the insults with completely unjustifiable violence. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/406 "2012-09-18T18:53:54Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Nobody’s suggesting that anybody’s speech be censored. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Even in the US, many non-state entities (colleges, for example) are constitutionally allowed to identify and prohibit in their activities certain types of expression as “hate speech”. But nix nix nix on actually making it illegal, and good for us, sez I. OK, censor away as long as you don’t make it against the law. Got it. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/407 "2012-09-18T19:03:27Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > That’s ENTIRELY different. This would fall under the reasonable restrictions of free speech, which also includes fighting words. Its a little bit the same. My point being that you can in fact sometimes blame speech for violence. Perhaps not in this case, and frankly it is looking more and more like the death of the ambassador was separate and apart from the riots, if there was any connection between the two it was at best a cover created by the rocket propelled grenade guys. The radio broadcasts were not fighting words, they were incitement to violence. The film was neither, but still an ass move that can rightly be criticized and condemned by anyone that chooses to do so. > [@kwimby](#): > > I take it you are unfamiliar with the term “mutually exclusive.” > > There is no relationship bewteen “supporting free speech” and “condemning hate speech.” > > They are mutually exclusive, unrelated topics. Please continue clouding your confusion with some magnanimous view of why terrorism and hate speech are wrongly obstructed by free speech. > > By all means, continue… :smack: Just as a reminder what the first amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” See nothing in there about not condemning stupid speech, just says you can’t outlaw it. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/408 "2012-09-18T19:39:23Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > OK, censor away as long as you don’t make it against the law. Are you just saying that you don’t like it when private institutions have policies against hate speech in their members’ institutional activities? Or are you saying that you think such institutions ought to be legally barred from having any such policies? Supporting free speech doesn’t mean that you get to decide what restrictions other individuals or private organizations may place on their **own** speech. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/409 "2012-09-18T20:10:59Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Are you just saying that you don’t like it when private institutions have policies against hate speech in their members’ institutional activities? > > Or are you saying that you think such institutions ought to be legally barred from having any such policies? I’m observing that while you’re vigorously patting yourself on the back for being a free speech defender and saying “Nobody’s suggesting that anybody’s speech be censored”, you don’t seem to have much objection to private and quasi-public institutions (i.e. colleges) restricting speech. Which is perhaps incompatible with a self-congratulatory stance against censorship. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Supporting free speech doesn’t mean that you get to decide what restrictions other individuals or private organizations may place on their **own** speech. So you’re saying that what students say or write is not _their_ speech, but the college’s “own” speech, and therefore no one should question its restrictions, because that’s actually self-censorship? Curious. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/410 "2012-09-18T20:33:20Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I’m observing that while you’re vigorously patting yourself on the back for being a free speech defender and saying “Nobody’s suggesting that anybody’s speech be censored”, you don’t seem to have much objection to private and quasi-public institutions (i.e. colleges) restricting speech. 😕 Who said I didn’t object to it? I was just pointing out that it’s not **unconstitutional** , in the context of trying to explain to **RedFury** some of the ramifications of the official US stance on free speech. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > So you’re saying that what students say or write is not _their_ speech, but the college’s “own” speech, and therefore no one should question its restrictions, because that’s actually self-censorship? Sure, anyone can question its restrictions. Or even dislike or openly object to its restrictions. Fine by me. But nobody gets to **determine** its restrictions, because it has a constitutional right to make its own restrictions. Dunno why you seem so pissed off at me in this thread, **Jackmannii** , but I don’t think it will help to keep nitpicking exaggerated interpretations of what I post in the hope of catching me contradicting myself. Yes, I’m an aggressive supporter of the right to free speech, and yes, I think the right to free speech includes the right to loudly disparage and condemn others who are indulging in offensive speech. There’s no contradiction in that, and I have no idea why it seems to be bugging you so much. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/411 "2012-09-18T20:39:08Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > So you’re saying that what students say or write is not _their_ speech, but the college’s “own” speech, and therefore no one should question its restrictions, because that’s actually self-censorship? Jumping in here, I think the question of what restrictions a college can place on a student or faculty member is an interesting one, and doesn’t have a single simple answer, as it varies greatly between different types of speech in different contexts. In most contexts, I’m sure that the free speech right is still inviolate. But what about when speaking in public while representing the university? While teaching? In the student newspaper? Actually, there’s a question here I’m not sure about. I’m quite certain that a business (ie, a restaurant) can’t have a rule saying “you’re not allowed to say pro-Obama things in this restaurant”… but what about a rule saying “no discussion of politics whatsoever”? Could a restaurant refuse to server any customers who discussed politics in general? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/412 "2012-09-18T21:29:25Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Jumping in here, I think the question of what restrictions a college can place on a student or faculty member is an interesting one, and doesn’t have a single simple answer, as it varies greatly between different types of speech in different contexts. In most contexts, I’m sure that the free speech right is still inviolate. A good default position to take if one is a staunch defender of free speech in general (restrictions are to be viewed with suspicion and need ample, well-reasoned justification). For instance, I don’t recall [Nat Hentoff](http://mail.michaelbryson.net/teaching/csun/hentoff.pdf) saying “Government can’t violate the First Amendment, but if colleges want to restrict “their” speech - hey, that’s their right.” ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/413 "2012-09-19T00:28:47Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > OK, censor away as long as you don’t make it against the law. > > Got it. :dubious: Yup, got it. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![kwimby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dc4da7/32.png) [@kwimby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kwimby)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/414 "2012-09-19T00:34:25Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > …opining that people who are promulgating offensive religious bigotry should have the common sense and decency not to, is not censorship. You can opine and criticize all you want, but you are wasting your breath. You are opining and criticizing against something that is not even a fundamental part of this problem. Viewing the utterances of some person or entity as a subject of scrutiny in this debate is just furthering the stupidity that started it. The OP was on the right track. Not seeing the forest for the trees only leads to more confusion. It is not about free speech. It is not about information as it exists in the world in any form, who it came from, where or why. It is about appeasing terrorist assholes. You are guilty of it right here, right now. You stand accused of double speak, and you continue doing it contrary to simple reason. Referring to “common sense” in characterizing speech is patently absurd. Who’s version of sense are you referring to? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/415 "2012-09-19T00:47:33Z")
> [@kwimby](#): > > Not seeing the forest for the trees only leads to more confusion. Of course it does. Forests and trees are mutually exclusive. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/416 "2012-09-19T01:54:38Z")
> [@kwimby](#): > > You can opine and criticize all you want, but you are wasting your breath. You are opining and criticizing against something that is not even a fundamental part of this problem. Viewing the utterances of some person or entity as a subject of scrutiny in this debate is just furthering the stupidity that started it. > > The OP was on the right track. > > Not seeing the forest for the trees only leads to more confusion. It is not about free speech. It is not about information as it exists in the world in any form, who it came from, where or why. It is about appeasing terrorist assholes. The State Department Memo in the OP was released before the Libyan consulate was attacked. Romney implied otherwise, which is why his remarks are properly characterized as a smear. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/417 "2012-09-19T03:26:47Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > How would you define “being responsible” then? Being accountable. > [@](#): > > Indisputably true. But, in my view, that doesn’t mean it can’t also be the case that someone else also bears some responsibility. To make a really reductive analogy, if I tell you “hey, you should make sure to take a long walk alone in the east side of town, it’s VERY safe”, knowing that it’s crime-ridden, and you get mugged, the person who mugged you is 100% responsible for the crime he committed. But I’m also clearly somewhat responsible for what happened to you. I feel like you think that saying “person X is partly responsible for situation Y, in which person Z committed a horrible crime” in some way lessens the guilt/responsibility of person Z. Which it does not at all necessarily do. But this is not simply a matter of speech but a matter of deceit. I could trace a direct line of responsibility from my getting mugged to your giving me false reassurance that it’s very safe walking alone in the east side of town. There is something akin to fiduciary duty that you failed to give by not warning me of the dangers of walking alone in the east side of town. Any feelings of responsibility you would feel out of my mugging arises from this failure and not from speech. In fact, had you said nothing given the high likelihood that I will walk in the east side of town alone, you would still feel responsible for it - so clearly this is not an issue of speech. On the other hand, no such direct line exists on the kind of speech I was referring to. > [@](#): > > Not at all. I’m not advocating anything. I’m simply disagreeing with your philosophical position. Now, do you agree? ---
**Author:** ![scratch\_llll](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@scratch\_llll](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scratch_llll)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/418 "2012-09-19T04:51:36Z")
> [@SiXSwordS](#): > > Your story doesn’t hold up to even mild scrutiny. Your claim that you are too squeamish to manage a cite is one of the more pathetic evasions I’ve ever seen. Admit, if only to yourself, that you saw no such picture (on CNN!?!?) and that you are only interested in inventing a new horror in an already horrific story. You are calling me a liar and after hours of searching the net for the picture to refute your assertion I still cannot find it. It doesn’t help that I’m on dialup. The only pics I have found are the same two over and over. Those were not it. I saw it on TV and it was as I desciribed. I could be wrong about penetration. That part was fuzzed as I first said. Snopes agrees with you and they are almost never wrong so I have to admit you are correct and my interpretation is wrong. The news program said “it has been reported” Stevens was raped before showing the picture so I may have jumped to a conclusion there. However I am completely puzzled that I cannot find that specific picture. I’m not crazy. It was the guy with the phone in his mouth. Stevens pants were as I said and the guy behind him in a suggestive position. They could have fallen off as he was dragged but Stevens was bent double. I’m willing to accept I was wrong but not that I never saw that picture. Where the hell is it? Crappy internet. I have to either let you call me a liar or search hour upon hour. Unless only one source had it and squashed it it has to surface at some point right? Man I don’t want to have to search through right wing crap for more hours. Thanks so much for calling me a liar. I have no interest in inventing anything but you will never believe that until I find it or someone else speaks up (and it has to be someone you know and trust) who saw it. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/419 "2012-09-19T06:15:23Z")
> [@](#): > > How would you define “being responsible” then? > [@Anduril](#): > > Being accountable. . . . A synonym, but not a definition. What kind of responsibility or accountability? In what form am I compelled to respond or account? I’ve been bugged by this language for years now; I honestly don’t know what the words mean. Say I do something someone else doesn’t like, or which has unpleasant consequences. They say, “You must take responsibility.” Well, okay. “I accept responsibility.” Now what? Do I have to pay money? Do I have to issue an apology? Do I have to declare that I was wrong? Do I get sued? If so, do I get a defense? What’s the format? Or is just saying, “Yep, sure enough, I accept responsibility” enough, by itself? If so, it seems remarkably vacuous. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2012, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432/420 "2012-09-19T06:35:39Z")
Well I for one give scratch permission to give up his search. Thanks for taking one for the team. I’m willing to say he may or may not have been mistaken when he saw it on TV. That said, Al Q was using the mob as a method of killing its sworn enemies. We know that many of their members are willing to commit atrocity. But let’s be fair. There were also Arabs who gave their best to rescue the US Ambassador, rushing him to the hospital. [HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/christopher-stevens-death_n_1890322.html) Just saying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-statement-from-the-us-embassy-in-cairo/634432.md?page=22)