I heard his radio ad for the first time today, and was surprised for a moment (“Secretary of State? Why would people care what he thinks?”) until I realized that he is probably just getting an early start on his 2006 gubernatorial campaign. Maybe I’ll have to vote for Jerry Springer instead…
I’m curious as to how you got on the “call” list. I live in Akron. I haven’t read about or heard about people getting calls from Blackwell.
Any help here?
This could be a great newspaper story, if it can be established just ‘how’ the callers were selected.
And, since this is the Pit, Blackwell is an Uncle Tom. And I mean that in the most derogatory sense of the term, not in the sense as it was first used. (You’d have to read threads about that. 
)
How so? Perhaps he simply believes in the correctness of the approach he’s urging.
I think samclem was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I think you’ve missed the point, Otto.
Personally, I don’t agree with what I gather is the spirit or intent of Issue 1, (I’m not an Ohio resident) as GLBT folks ought not to have their rights abridged any more or less than the population at large.
That said, Bricker also made a valid point, if I understand him correctly, which is that speech is equally deserving of protection, and should not be subject to pick and choose definitions of what is offensive, no more so than a neighborhood should pick and choose who may live there, or selectively determine rights and opportunities of said residents.
No issue taken here that the message is offensive to you. However, others may find your point of view to be equally offensive. If fair and equitable treatment is truly your goal, then who is to be squelched? It becomes an all or none proposition, which is what Bricker essentially said.
One final observation-at least this politician is putting his cards on the table before the election. You can cast an informed vote against what he stands for. Would you rather he delivered a carefully crafted speech to garner your support, and then stick it to you after November?
danceswithcats: that’s a lovely sentiment, and one which I wholeheartedly agree. I just don’t see the application to this thread, because no one here as advocated that people who support this bill have their speech suppressed. The closest anyone has come to that is panache asking the Governor, on whose behalf these calls are being made, to stop calling panache. Asking someone not to talk to you is not a violation of anyone’s first ammendment rights.
Oh for chrissakes! Where has anyone said that this dickwad shouldn’t have the legal right to make his phonecalls? People are calling him offensive, despicable, etc., not a criminal. It would be legal for the KKK to send out automated phone messages for the purposes of advocating for voting on a ballot proposition affecting the civil rights of blacks, too. Must we refrain from criticizing that as well?
Bricker, may I ask a serious question? Do you truly feel that process is always more important than substance? Because your postings of late have sure seemed like that. Just because some action accords with proper procedure doesn’t make it acceptable, and sometimes violating said procedure is appropriate, if substantive considerations are weighty enough.
Wow. Otto, I have to say that in the past few months I’ve begun to see things from your POV, even if I don’t always agree with you. But this is asinine. Do you not see the point Bricker was making? I think he was saying (apologies to **Bricker ** if wrong) that regardless of your vote, everyone will find something to be offended at.
[slight hijack]I love it when election officials campaign on behalf of their party and partisan issues. Not that I’m implying anything, but the Secretary of State is the head of elections for the State of Ohio and AFAIK is not up for re-election this year. Personally, I’d prefer to see an independent or multi-party committee in charge of elections, but that’s just me, so this didn’t look so…well, inappropriate.[/hijack]
panache45, I think your letter is great, but I’m sad to say I don’t think it’s likely to make much of an impression on this guy. I’m sure you know that and I commend you nonetheless. While, I wouldn’t necessarily go as far as calling him an Uncle Tom (that seems pretty harsh), it appears he has cozied up quite nicely with the Religious Right. Check out his stance on other issues. Now, maybe I’m unintentionally stereotyping, but his political positions on many issues seem incongruous with his race.
You may also enjoy his views on human rights in a speech he gave last September at Ashland University entitled Religious Liberty: The Most Precious of our Liberties. You might find some ammunition to fight his brand of intolerance in his very own statements.
More power to ya! Fight the good fight, people.
It depends on what criticism you level at it.
“Those KKK morons are idiots, and their phone calls with suggestions that I vote against civil rights for blacks are equally idiotic.”
Nothing wrong with that criticism.
“Those KKK morons are making offensive, harrassing phone calls to me by suggesting that I vote against civil rights for blacks, and I want them stopped.”
Now, there might be something wrong with that criticism. The law says that political phone calls are exempt from the telemarketing rules requiring you to be able to opt-out. But perhaps the writer is expressing his frustration with that rule; perhaps he believes ALL political phone calls are harrassing and offensive. That would be a defensible argument; although not in tune with current First Amendment law, certainly a view that can be reasonably held. Or perhaps the writer believes that phone calls suggesting voting against civil rights for blacks are offenseive and harrassing, but supports the right of the Urban League and the NAACP to make phone cals urging votes in favor of civil rights for blacks. This is unclear from the criticism, and so it might spark a question.
That question was asked above, by me, to the OP, under very simialr circumstances.
Depends. In this case, I don’t agree that we should be able to shut down these “offensive and harrassing” phone calls from Secretary of State Blackwell except by the ordinary means of informing Secretary of State Blackwell that the calls are not creating a positive effect.
Procedure holds an important place, though, and here’s an excellent example of why. When the rules are known in advance, then you can’t play the game of arbitrarily shutting down actions or content you don’t like. There’s a strong tendency in many areas to simply decide on the “correct” result, and then try to shoehorn rationale or rule behind to mkae it fit. I see that here in a lot of ways, and I believe it’s fundamentally dishonest. If you favor the tactic when it’s used by your side, then grit your teeth and applaud when it’s used by the other side. I’m pushing procedure over substance in these cases because I believe it’s the only way to keep eyes focused on that fundamental honesty.
- Rick
Oh, I love it.
What does this mean? What political positions would be consistent with his race?
While you’re at it, let me know what political positions would be consistent with me - I’m Hispanic, married to a Hispanic.
Thanks.
- Rick
Let’s see… Immigration… and, um… oh! Cuba? […shrug…] Also, I think you should be against leaf peeping.
Probably should have narrowed it down. My father came here from El Salvador; my wife is Dominican. So I’m neutral on the Cuba thing; my wife thinks that easing Cuban trade restrictions will hurt trade with the DR.
But that’s only what I think. I’m waiting to find out what my positions SHOULD be.
I think you’re supposed to be for dual language education too…or maybe you’re supposed to be against it, I’m not sure…
Great, this guy is speaking at my graduation tomorrow. :smack:
Who-Bricker or Otto?
Thing is, you seem to consistently raise this observation even in cases where posters are explicitly complaining about substance and not process. In this case, the OP isn’t saying “These calls should be stopped because calling someone with an automated system is unacceptable.” Heck, the OP isn’t even saying the calls should be stopped by means of govt coercion at all. The OP is saying that the nature of the calls is inherently offensive to him, and he wants the person behind them to stop making them (NOTE: not to be made to stop making them, merely to desist voluntarily). This is not remotely inconsistent with not having similar feelings towards automated calls which are not inherently offensive to him. It is only if the OP were to want the authorities to force the calls to be stopped, or were objecting to the calls based on their procedural nature (i.e., automated, unsolicited, etc) as opposed to their substantive nature (i.e., asking him to vote against his own civil rights) that your observation would be germane. Since neither of these conditions is satisfied, your post strikes me as entirely missing the point of the OP.
And I don’t mean to be nitpicking here. You’ve made similarly point-missing posts in other threads as well. For example, in Otto’s pitting of Bloomberg, where Otto is bitching not because of Bloomberg’s actions as they relate to democratic procedure, but because Bloomberg, in spite of supposedly being moderate, is pushing an extremely anti-gay position. You post in that thread that Bloomberg’s procedure is out of line, but that if Otto opposes it he should also oppose people who engage in similar procedure for ends Otto would support. This simply doesn’t follow. Otto isn’t objecting to the way in which Bloomberg is pursuing his goal, but is objecting to the goal itself. So there would be absolutely no inconsistency if Otto supported someone using the same method to pursue a goal of which he approves. But you miss that point as well.
This is what has been bothering me. You come into threads where people are airing these substantive grievances, and boldly declare that their ire is only legitimate if they would take a similar view of actions procedurally similar but substantively acceptable. This goes far beyond demanding honesty, and results in me getting the sense that you don’t think that the substantive issues have any weight at all, and that the only thing that matters is procedure. This, of course, is obviously not a legitimate position: clearly support for free speech, for example, doesn’t entail that one need approve of hate speech, or even refrain from vehement criticism of it, but only that one shouldn’t use coercion to stop it.
The constitutional protection accorded to the freedom of speech and of the press is not based on the naive belief that speech can do no harm but on the confidence that the benefits society reaps from the free flow and exchange of ideas outweigh the costs society endures by receiving reprehensible or dangerous ideas. Appellate Court- Texas v. Flynt
I got the same phone call. I have no idea how we got on the call list.
I don’t like receiving recorded messages from any political or commercial entities, and I wish they all would stop.
Bricker:
At no time did I say that Blackwell shouldn’t have the same freedom of speech as anyone else. My hatred of censorship is even greater than my hatred of homophobia, if it’s possible to compare the two. And I’m also aware of the fact that we have to protect our freedom, especially regarding speech that we find offensive. If Blackwell were calling me and saying “have a nice day,” it would be a minor annoyance, but nothing more.
But this isn’t about censorship, it’s about character. This is an elected official at one of the highest positions in state government, and he’s actively campaigning to curtail my rights - the very rights that he’s expected to protect - and asking me to join him in that campaign. I’m not supporting the violation of **his **rights, I’m simply making it known that this person is a miserable excuse for a public servant.
Plus the fact that nobody seems to know exactly where these calls are coming from, or how they’re being financed. If any of this is being paid for with public funds (i.e. **my **tax dollars), I think the people of Ohio need to know this.