I Can Say What I Want, But NOT You!

[007]

I can say what I want, but NOT you!​

Well, what do we have here? Looks like a small case of some people being able to dish it out, but not able to take it. Let's start at the top. The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman.

Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association. The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. The group had complained the cartoons were "hate speech." Enter Professor Wichman. In his e-mail, he said the following:

Dear Moslem Association: As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest.

I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of
Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey!), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia
law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."

If you do not like the values of the West -- see the 1st Amendment -- you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option.
Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially, I. S. Wichman, Professor of Mechanical Engineering"


Well! As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well. They're demanding Wichman be reprimanded and mandatory
diversity training for faculty and a seminar on hate and discrimination for freshman. How nice. But now the Michigan chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.

For its part, the university is standing its ground. They say the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks. That will probably change. Wichman says he never intended the e-mail to be made public, and wouldn't have used the same strong language if he'd known it was going to get out.

How's the left going to handle this one? If you're in favor of the freedom of speech, as in the case of Ward Churchill, will the same protections be demanded for Indrek Wichman? I doubt it. Hey folks, send this to everybody and ask them to do the same and tell them to keep passing it around till the whole country gets it. We are in a war.

 

[Emmett]

There you go again................ condeming those fine young examples of America's future for their personal beliefs. If those kids don't want him saying things like that they shouldn't have to listen to it here in AMerica. Free Speech is for the press dummy....................not the public!

This Professors insensative statements inviting these fine young muslims to seek free education elsewhere is uncalled for. These kids are our guests and we should treat them as such. So Muslims have burned a few churches, raped a few chicks and looted a couple of businesses but damn!

As for the cartoon depicting Muhammed as a terrorist, we all know that less than half of the muslims in the world subscribe to that kind of behavior. That is not a majority. Just because millions of them want to blow you up while you are sleeping gives you no right to expose the student association or accuse them of unfair bias against this obviously hard core AMERICAN professor.

It is people like you who continually dig up these "hate based" articles to stimulate bias against these fine muslim citizens who simply seek no cost education at your expense. Dammit man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would suggest you get couseling! Possibly a hate management class that can help you control your anger. These young muslims can't help it, they were bread from this culture and are committed to expanding it. You know good and well that here in America they have been provided just the breeding ground for this philosophy they require. That is what Liberals are for!

God only knows what other kind of shit you are likely to produce here on this website that stimulate people's feelings about this subject. As for your silly question about the honorable Ward Churchill, of course there will be a double standard. Do you think that a conservative Professor will get equal treatment as it applies to Freedom of Speech. Come on dude, wake up!

 

[KarlMarx]

I worked with a bunch like that.... they seemed to think that I was entitled to their opinions. However, if I even opened my mouth, the fangs and claws came out. One particular coworker was especially vicious, she was definitely a frothing at the mouth leftist. This woman was something out of the Communist Manifesto. I had to measure my words around her.I think she'd get the others in the department to ask me questions within earshot of her just so that she had a reason to argue with me. Once, I mentioned that I attended a meeting at my son's school to discuss child molesters (I just said that I attended the meeting) and she leapt out of her seat and gave me the tenth degree about how I was on a "witch hunt" against child molesters. She was livid! And she did it in front of my coworkers. Today, I would have gone straight to my manager, but back then, I believed in handling these things myself.

After a while, I didn't discuss anything around that bunch, and kept to myself. You'd think that would have helped...

One day, I was called into my manager's office and told that the others (I am sure instigated by Ms. Lefty) had complained about my attitude towards women! I asked my manager what I had done, or what I had said to give the others the impression..... I'll remember the answer until my dying day....

"Nothing..... it's just a feeling they have". I remember telling him that there was such a thing as the First Amendment and that I was entitled to my beliefs. He just shrugged it off.

To make matters worse, a week later, one of them had a skip level interview with my third line manager and told him the same thing. My manager was not only embarrassed but took it out on me.

(Is this sounding like I should have gone to see an attorney for harassment yet?)

I found an office away from this bunch of vipers, and kept myself in there with the door closed. I was pretty much under my manager's eye. I felt like I couldn't go anywhere or talk to anyone except to go to the bathroom or look at my mail. I was in fear that I was going to be fired for sexual harassment at any time.

Anyway, a coworker who left the department happened to find out about this and told me the same thing happened to him. Then he had a talk with my manager, and told him the REAL reasons why he left the department.

A few weeks later, my manager told me that he finally came to see that the complaints against me were baseless and that I wasn't the problem, but my co-workers. I asked for and got a transfer out of that department, but not before my manager transferred to another area, too.

Eventually, Ms. Che Guevara left the company and now works at the local State University, known for its leftist attitude, to be among her fellow revolutionaries. The same university that she graduated from. That is the Binghamton University, or as I like to call it "Bolshevik University".

In retrospect, I should have complained to my management about this person on a regular basis. This person was, without a doubt, a two faced, vicious, foaming at the mouth Leftist maniac. I could have, and probably should have, gone to see an attorney with a complaint about a hostile work environment and harassment. I probably would have been several hundred thousand dollars richer now.

If you ever wondered why (and I know you haven't) why I feel the way I do about things, this is one reason why. I experienced first hand the results of left wing, liberal policies. I was guilty without a trial, without evidence, just because I had a different point of view. The system allows that....

That wasn't my only brush with the Leftist lunacy that has this country's judges and lawmakers in its spell. I had another Peyton Place episode in my life, much worse than this. Again, thanks to Leftist ideology.

The lesson I learned from this brush was Don't trust liberals. Many are nice people, but some will turn on you. Some of them are just plain old vicious maniacs. And they do it with the enthusiasm of a zealot. They are that blinded by the Left. The reason they like to wear red is that it goes well with the blood on their hands.

I guess it seems obvious now, but wasn't so obvious to me ten years ago.

P.S. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Pale Rider again. Sorry Pale, I tried.

 

[007]

I worked with a bunch like that....

I'll be damned Karl. Just reading of that experience makes my hair stand on end. I've never had or been in a situation such as that, probably because of the mechanical/electrical trades I'm in, don't know. But had I been, or been around you or someone else that was and I was aware of it, as I sit here contemplating it, I'm not quite sure what I'd have done. I'm pretty sure that "in the moment", I'd have been up in someones face letting them know they'd better be real careful how they talk to me, or I'd slap 'em so hard their mama would have a black eye, and of course, that's where I'd have been wrong, but DAMN, would that have FELT good... to slap a rabid liberal.

I'm sorry you had to go through that Karl. The venomous liberal left has no heart or conscience. But, I think it's fully educated you as to the lengths these steaming piles of dog shit called liberals will go to. No wonder they try and hide who they really are. They're utterly despicable.

 

[Hobbit]

Don't you know? This professor violated one of the seven deadly sins of liberalism, offending a minority. As such, his actions are protected by no constitutional rights and he deserves to be chastised, castrated, and to burn in hell. After all, there is no constitution to them. Constitutional right is just a catch phrase to refer to something they want.

 

[Annie]

Geez Karl, I probably would have

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Don't you know? This professor violated one of the seven deadly sins of liberalism, offending a minority. As such, his actions are protected by no constitutional rights and he deserves to be chastised, castrated, and to burn in hell. After all, there is no constitution to them. Constitutional right is just a catch phrase to refer to something they want.

Agreed, isn't it convenient how liberals always seem to forget our Constitutional right to free speech (unless it's them speaking) in favor of their trumped-up "minority right" to be free of "hate speech"?

 

[acludem]

I have no problem with what this guy did. He protested a protest. Nothing wrong with that. The Muslim Association can be pissed about it, but the University is standing by the professor.

The left will handle this as I did, by supporting the free speech rights of both sides.

acludem

 

[Annie]

Yep, Trib editorial this a.m.:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...un21,0,3741086.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed

No dissenters need apply?

Published June 21, 2006

No matter what else you think about the American Civil Liberties Union, you could always count on it to defend the right to speak out. So of course the debate over whether the ACLU's board members should muzzle themselves has become a delightfully public squabble.

"A director may publicly disagree with an ACLU policy position, but may not criticize the ACLU board or staff," reads a proposal drawn up by a committee named to help define the responsibilities of board members. A member who disagrees with a board decision "should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement."

That doesn't run afoul of the 1st Amendment. Your government can't tell you to keep your mouth shut, though your boss can when what you're saying reflects on your employer.

But isn't this a strange position for the ACLU to be in? Why would it be so concerned that a little free discourse between ACLU board members might damage the organization?

Why would it want to muzzle its own people?

One hint is contained in the committee's proposal, which reminds board members that such bickering could "affect the ACLU adversely in terms of public support and fundraising." That would seem to suggest that the dollars are more important than the ideals.

Internal dynamics may be to blame. The standards committee was formed after the board rejected an attempt to oust two of its members who had spoken out about decisions they said were counter to ACLU principles. One was a grant agreement (later reversed) that required the group to check new hires against government terrorist watch lists; the other was a plan to scour information lists (Gasp! Data mining!) to recruit members.

More recently, some board members criticized the ACLU for endorsing legislation that would regulate advertising by pro-life counseling centers that claim to provide "abortion services" but actually try to talk women into continuing their pregnancies.

"That seems to me a very clear example of government being the language police," board member Wendy Kaminer told the New York Sun.

Kaminer's position would seem to go right to the CL in ACLU. But her remarks led to an ugly dust-up at an April board meeting.

There's an irresistible irony in all this--the champions of free speech, debating a self-imposed gag order. It doesn't seem likely to boost public support or fundraising if the ACLU assumes a new role ... of language police.

 

[acludem]

I don't have any problem with the ACLU saying let's not air our internal politics publicly. It's a PR decision not a PC decision. Let's not confuse the issue. Most corporations don't allow members of their boards of directors to discuss internal issues publicly. It hurts moral, can hurt business, and is just plain unprofessional.

acludem

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I have no problem with what this guy did. He protested a protest. Nothing wrong with that. The Muslim Association can be pissed about it, but the University is standing by the professor.

The left will handle this as I did, by supporting the free speech rights of both sides.

acludem

You think the left supports free speech? Dream on. Remember the Philadelphia 11?

http://www.freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=12528

After reading this, you might be exclaiming Thank heaven I do not live under antihate laws as capricious and ensnaring as Canada's or Pennsylvania's. The truth is that you probably do. If you do not live in Wyoming, Florida, or Georgia (which recently had its hate law ruled unconstitutional), then your state has an ADL-inspired anti-hate law which is probably just as stiff and cruel as Pennsylvania's and one that is just waiting to descend on you if you should you intimidate anyone from a protected group.

If you are a pastor, talk-show host or publisher, for example, and you hurt the feelings of a homosexual, beware. The hate crime bureaucracy in your state could well descend on you, burying you in false accusations and court costs.

It happened to 11 Christians in Pennsylvania. It can happen to you.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't have any problem with the ACLU saying let's not air our internal politics publicly. It's a PR decision not a PC decision. Let's not confuse the issue. Most corporations don't allow members of their boards of directors to discuss internal issues publicly. It hurts moral, can hurt business, and is just plain unprofessional.

acludem

You're muzzling would-be whistle blowers.:fu2:

 

[jillian]

I think it's kinda nice that Pale is fighting for free speech. Maybe he's realized the error of his ways and repented for negging people for their opinions. :teeth:

 

[jillian]

You're muzzling would-be whistle blowers.:fu2:

Actually, the Supreme Court already did that.

 

[dilloduck]

Actually, the Supreme Court already did that.

not that kind , silly. The kind that would leak the truth about the ACLU to the public.

 

[Gunny]

There you go again................ condeming those fine young examples of America's future for their personal beliefs. If those kids don't want him saying things like that they shouldn't have to listen to it here in AMerica. Free Speech is for the press dummy....................not the public!

I thought free speech was for the left as well as the media? Just us dumb redneck, red-staters on the right who need to shut up.

 

[007]

I think it's kinda nice that Pale is fighting for free speech. Maybe he's realized the error of his ways and repented for negging people for their opinions. :teeth:

Negging someone because I disagreed with them does NOT mean I want them to shut up. It means I "DISAGREE" with them, and in the case of you rabid liberals, sometimes vehemently!

If negging meant shut up, it certainly hasn't worked on you.

 

[jillian]

Negging someone because I disagreed with them does NOT mean I want them to shut up. It means I "DISAGREE" with them, and in the case of you rabid liberals, sometimes vehemently!

If negging meant shut up, it certainly hasn't worked on you.

Nope. It's a way of discouraging people from talking.

And yeah...luckily it doesn't work on me (although you're the only person ever to neg me)

 

[007]

Nope. It's a way of discouraging people from talking.

And yeah...luckily it doesn't work on me (although you're the only person ever to neg me)

What makes you think it discourages people from talking if it hasn't affected you?

And there's nothing stopping me from negging you again either...

 

[Dr Grump]

What makes you think it discourages people from talking if it hasn't affected you?

And there's nothing stopping me from negging you again either...

Some people like the little green lights. You know this, so you neg rep them. It discourages them from talking. You do it as a means of trying to make them shut up. If you do it because you don't agree with them, you are the only person I can see who does it for that reason. Pretty shallow reason IMO....