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:
So if you support the Republican Party, you think every Republican everywhere is great?
I’m not, but apparently you are, since you use the term incorrectly.
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.
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.
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.
OK, censor away as long as you don’t make it against the law.
Got it. :dubious:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 saying “Government can’t violate the First Amendment, but if colleges want to restrict “their” speech - hey, that’s their right.”
Yup, got it. :dubious:
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?
Of course it does. Forests and trees are mutually exclusive.
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.
Being accountable.
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.
Now, do you agree?
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.
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.
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 Just saying.