What if the funding in question wasn’t towards abortions? What if it was… say… towards Gun Research? Would you still be outraged about “advocating censorship via blackmail”?
Just wondering if you’re more concerned about the distribution of funds or the abortion rights (both equally valid concerns, IMOSHO, so please do not take this post as a slam towards you… I’m merely curious).
Ok, TomH, let me try this again. Apparently, you need to take some reading comprehension classes.
I don’t care what other countries do internally. I don’t. I really, really, really don’t. I don’t care what the people vote, what the politicians want, or how the government is ran. Whatever works for you works for me.
But when the President of the United States of America, the man sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution ignoresthe very principals he upholds, whether in the US or overseas, it bothers me. If Country X is not concerned with free speech, and it’s not an issue in Country X’s politics or elections, than, well it’s not an issue. However, if the US, that does support Freedom of Speech swoops into a country, and uses monetary influence to blackmail or otherwise censor a group, than it’s a bad thing.
I’m not going to explain it again. If you don’t get it this time, I don’t know what to do for you.
I’d still be outraged.
FTR Spoofe, just because I’m sometimes shockingly liberal (Well for me. I haven’t always been this way) does not mean that I am liberal about gun control. I don’t join the debates, but to give you an idea, I’m pretty much aligned with Anthracite in my views of gun control.
You will find that the Constitution of the USA has effect only in that country and, to a limited extent, in respect of US citizens elsewhere in the world.
It does not extend the right to free speech to the residents of, for example, Ghana. The President is sworn to uphold the Constitution itself, not some set of abstract values which might underpin it.
To put it simply, it does not follow from:
“the US Constitution guarantees US citizens in the USA the right to free speech” (which is true);
“the US supports freedom of speech” (which is tenuous at best).
I can’t really put it any more simply than that: it’s neither the right nor the duty of the USA to go round imposing its values on other nations, however laudable you think those values are.
But all this is beside the point, anyway. I don’t need reading comprehension classes to understand that, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …” does not mean that the US Government is required actively to fund any particular kind of information or advice service anywhere in the world.
I didn’t mean to imply that you were, and I apologize if it seemed as such. I sure as hell don’t wanna start another gun thread… ::shudder::… I was just wondering if the issue here was abortions in general, or the funding in particular (both equally valid concerns, as I’ve said, even if I don’t entirely agree with both as they pertain to this case).
Pepperlandgirl, think of it this way. You’re standing on the streetcorner, excercizing your right to free speech by telling everyone your opinion on “Topic Z”. I walk up and offer you $50.00 if you will stop giving your opinion on “Topic Z.”
Does that infringe on your right to free speech? No it does not. You are free to speak or not speak, whatever you like. But I won’t give you $50.00 unless you shut up. That is MY right, since it’s my money.
You may feel that it is stupid, foolish and misguided of me to pay people not to talk about “Topic Z.” But I am not violating their rights by doing so.