What Speech Should Be Acceptable to Restrict?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Foxfyre, Jan 10, 2011.

?

So do you agree with the proposed legislation re inflammatory speech?

  1. Yes. Certain everyday words are too inflammatory to use in political ads or speech.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No. Speech that does not specifically incite to violence should not be restricted.

    14 vote(s)
    66.7%
  3. Something in between and I'll explain in my post.

    2 vote(s)
    9.5%
  4. This is a stupid question and is not worthy of discussion.

    5 vote(s)
    23.8%
  1. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,735
    Thanks Received:
    10,836
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,488
    NOTE: I do NOT want this to be focused on any particular event but rather debated on its own merits please.

    According to "The Hill" and his appearance on Fox News this morning, Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress. He told Fox News that he wants federal lawmakers and officials to have the same protections as the President. He doesn't know whether graphics or language using crosshairs or targets or similar inflammatory language has been implicated in any violence, but he would rather be safe than sorry.

    And that comes amidst a fresh round of accusations of various conservative figures instigating and encouraging violence through their various speeches and programs.

    You know there have been tens of thousands of vitriolic political ads in my lifetime and I don't recall any inciting anybody to violence.

    Alos, tens of millions of people listen to Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Savage et al every weekday and also read Malkin, Coulter, and others equally as provocative. Sarah Palin has appeard at several dozen Tea Party events where there was no violence of any kind. And though their audiences are tiny by comparison, none are any more explicit in their rhetoric or any more negative toward those they criticize than are Olbermann, Matthews, Maher, some of the folks on the View, etc. etc. etc. And words like 'target' or 'crosshairs' are commonplace and often used.

    And that doesn't even include the other talking heads spewing hate speech toward this person or that group or whatever.

    Wouldn't you think if such rhetoric had any power to inspire violence that we would see wholesale violence with so much exposure and so many opportunities and hours devoted to political criticism?

    This morning Jack Shafer at Slate, not exactly the last bastion of conservatism, opposed this kind of extremist government control and defended heated political rhetoric:

    So what do you think. Do you approve of restrictions on the everybody words and imagery used in political ads and promotions? Or is this an unacceptable assault on free speech?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Soggy in NOLA
    Offline

    Soggy in NOLA Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Messages:
    32,951
    Thanks Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,667
    NONE.

    That's my $.02.
     
  3. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    Threats of violence are already illegal
     
  4. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    Anyone who advocates supression of speech should be forced to wear a ball gag for a month.

    Anyone who advocates supression of the writtenword should have their fingers super glued together.

    Lots of folks are just salivating for an excuse to shut down people they don't like.


    And this legislation never would touch the loons it is supposedly out to get.
     
  5. WillowTree
    Online

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,197
    Thanks Received:
    10,175
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,779
    It will end up like the "N" word. In liberal land it a "free speech for me but none for thee" kinda deal.
     
  6. Nosmo King
    Offline

    Nosmo King Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,047
    Thanks Received:
    3,310
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Buckle of the Rust Belt
    Ratings:
    +6,328
    I don't believe in any legislative mandate restricting speech. I do believe that editors, pundits, talk show hosts, bloggers and columnists should use better discretion and taste when making their points.

    Those same pundits and talk show hosts decry the coarsening of the culture while using inflammatory phrases and misleading accusations when they talk about political opposition. They have no one to blame but themselves when politics gets violent.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Nosmo King
    Offline

    Nosmo King Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,047
    Thanks Received:
    3,310
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Buckle of the Rust Belt
    Ratings:
    +6,328
    Miss calling the darkies *******, do ya?
     
  8. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    And then?
    Perhaps we will tend to blame sportscasters? Afterall, the say things like "dead heat" and "sudden death" or "killing them"....shot gun (football)..
    Sorry....I do not believe the word "revolution" by a pundit is something worthy of discussing.
     
  9. zzzz
    Offline

    zzzz Just a regular American

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,072
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Yountsville
    Ratings:
    +429
    So I guess we cannot make an effigy of our congressman if this passes! And people do not think that we are progressively turning into a police state. Duh!!!
     
  10. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,735
    Thanks Received:
    10,836
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,488
    Here you and I are pretty much on the same page. There has definitely been a coarsening of the culture and in recent decades a new ugliness infused into the national debate about almost anything. I deplore this as I think it demeans and diminishes us as a people as well as immediately lowering IQ at least 20 points.

    Your comment to Willow, however, I would put in that demeaning category. She said nothing to deserve that. :)

    I have no desire or inclination to use the "N" word which I am sure she doesn't either. But I do resent the double standard that allows one segment of society to use it often and with great familiarity while I would be condemned and, if possible, punished for using the same word. To me there is something wrong with that.
     

Share This Page