Many of them are, and I have no problem with violent people being prosecuted. Neither does anyone in this thread. Neither do the vast majority of liberals.
But that’s just the vast majority of liberals. You gotta remember that the police forces of our nations are populated, apparently, by a far-left contingent that likes to go soft on leftist criminals–how else to explain octopus’s complaint?
So you can’t point to any post where I “heavily” implied that only liberals suppress free speech as you claim and somehow that’s MY problem?
Welcome to great debates where you will be asked for cites to back up your claims.
Nope.
I’ve also, so far as I can tell, answered all the questions you’ve posed to me while asking for more information on your positions. Meanwhile you’ve called me a liar twice and, so far as I can tell, answered not a one of my questions in return (and rather twisted time in your one attempt to answer your own rhetorical question). So a fuller answer would be; no, and I’ve shown in our discussion to be more in favour of it than you have.
Not “can’t”: “won’t.”
Look, if you want to say that you did not intend to imply any such thing, fuckin say it already, and I’ll take you at your word. But I’m not gonna point to the posts that seemed to imply it and get into the exact sort of endless back-and-forth that you engage in with others. That’s a silly activity that bores me to contemplate. If you want to say you didn’t mean to imply it, I’ll take that; otherwise, make your final scoldy comment to me and I’ll be done with it.
Per the cite, of Robertson’s complaints;
[QUOTE=Robertson, from the article]
No society should allow some alien body to come to its midst that preaches terror, preaches overthrow, preaches violence and preaches another form of government. We shouldn’t have that.
…
They’re keeping on with their Islamic customs, Islamic dress, they’re speaking Arabic and they’re in the middle of Belgium and they’re growing and metastasizing and it won’t be long before they overwhelm the healthy body.
[/QUOTE]
Obviously “preaching terror” and violence aren’t necessarily problematic to want to halt. But judging by what Robertson points out later, his concern does not seem to be with only those inciting violence - or, perhaps easier to say, he doesn’t seem to identify a middle ground between “preaching hate” and “no longer being Muslim”, which leads me to question whether he’s talking about identified inciters or just Muslims. And being against someone preaching “another form of government” is a direct free speech issue. You could also put “speaking Arabic” in there.
My position isn’t complex. I believe people should be able to speak freely without the threat of physical violence. It’s not hard for relatively mature people to refrain from beating on those they disagree with.
I wonder how many people are going to be beat and how much property destroyed when Bill Maher has Milo Yianopolus on his show?
So the thing is, this position is completely uncontroversial in this thread. But when you describe words like “racist” as
That’s not remotely the same position as the one you just described. If you’re abandoning that silliness, and sticking to the bleedin’ uncontroversial statement that I quoted first, we’re all good!
So far this seems to be the position of everyone in this thread.
Interestingly, I know of no movement among students at military schools, schools of engineering, business schools, or other bastions of conservatism to film professors in order to get them in trouble for speaking their minds. This sort of intimidation against free speech seems to be wholly the tactic of conservatives in liberal arts institutions. So it’s not correct to act like all the suppression of free speech on campuses is from the left.
It’s a pity you weren’t at the Trump rally on March 11th, when hordes of angry Trump supporters physically assaulted a young man who was exercising his freedom of speech by standing on an American flag.
It’s a pity there’s so much violence among right-wing extremists that they would attack someone just for exercising their freedom of speech. But it’s consistent with the behavior of right-wing extremists, who commit the majority of political violence in this country. And are in fact a bigger threat to this country than ISIS.
I commend you for your concern with left wing violence, but as Carlin once said: while you’re focusing on the left wing, a right winger will fucking murder you. (That’s because right wing extremists are so much more violent than left wing extremists that law enforcement agencies consider right wing extremists a bigger threat to this country than Muslim terrorists.)
YOU made the claim. YOU back it up.
If you can’t then YOU admit the mistake.
Welcome to Great Debates.
I’m not sure that is suppressing free speech any more than telling someone to shut up on the internet. Don’t you actually have to be preventing someone from speaking for it to be suppression rather than rhetoric?
Advocating violence, as Robertson does, as a response to speech is a way to suppress speech.
I’m not 100% sure how you’ve got to “my position isn’t complex” from “to accurately explain my position I’d have to add a verbose disclaimer”, but that aside, you still haven’t answered any of my questions, and you still haven’t shown any inclination to apologise for calling me a liar. Or even to admit to it. By contrast, as I said before, I’ve asked questions about your position and answered your own.
Your words in quote are very pretty, and as a free speech advocate I would stand by your right to say them even if I disagreed with them, but I’d really appreciate it if you actually showed by your actions that you were in favour of free speech.
So what’s the conclusion of your wondering? Do you have numbers in mind?
These guys wereleft wing radicals, right?
You do realize that not only does your side engage in violence to shut up the opposition, they then brag about it, and brag about how cool it was to shut up the opposition.
Now, I will admit that there are those who are on my side of the ideological divide who do things that I would rather they didn’t, but I am willing to call them out for it, I am willing to condemn it, I am perfectly happy to see them arrested and charged for any violent activity.
Meanwhile, your side worships the violent suppressors of free speech, and then makes fun of those whose speech was shut down by right wing violence.
No arrests made, when will the right wing radicals be locked up for their violent suppression of free speech?
Well, to quote the article further;
[QUOTE=Yet more article]
Okay, a few of them, fine, assimilate into the society, learn the language, learn the customs and be Belgians. But these people are not. They’re keeping on with their Islamic customs, Islamic dress, they’re speaking Arabic and they’re in the middle of Belgium and they’re growing and metastasizing and it won’t be long before they overwhelm the healthy body. Here in America and other places, we can only stand so much infection before it overwhelms us.
Meeuwsen: But once you’ve allowed that to occur and roots have gone down into a city or a region, is it too late to change that?
Robertson: Not really, but it’s going to take violence. They’ve got to move in with the police dragnets.
[/QUOTE]
“There needs to be violence to prevent this” seems pretty inciting to me. Comparing it to telling someone to shut up on the internet misses a couple of key points - first, obviously, Robertson is a public figure and more than that someone that people listen to and follow, as I understand it. If I say something, I’d be very surprised if anyone listened. If Robertson speaks, people take note. And two; he’s not telling someone to shut up, he’s saying that violence needs to be employed in order to forcefully shut someone up. And the threat of violence is suppressive even abstracted from that violence.
If you were to tell me to shut up, I can laugh that off.
If you were to say that I needed to be shut up, that the only way was violence, and by the way you have people hanging on your word… well, I think there’s a good reason that would be against the rules.
It’s significantly more suppressive of free speech than merely telling someone to shut up on the internet.
I’m interested in seeing what those 10 threads with 5000 responses each had to say about this assault. octopus, please link to those threads so I can read them.
Unless they are taking things out of context a la O’keefe, why is it suppression of free speech to record publicly made statements? People should be responsible for what they say, right?
With that said, there is probably suppression of liberal speech on college campuses somewhere. Maybe Liberty university?
I agree threats of violence can suppress free speech, its mostly how you get the press to shut up about things. And I abhor Robertson for a million reasons. But what speech is he suppressing by promoting violent police action? Isn’t he advocating a form of ethnic or religious cleansing? I mean he doesn’t really seem to give a shit what muslims have to say, he is just being a bigot.
I suppose you can say that ALL intimidation is suppressive of free speech because the threatened group is being oppressed along all vectors.