What Speech Should Be Acceptable to Restrict?

[WillowTree]

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.

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.

I took umbrage with willow this time due to her "In liberal land it a "free speech for me but none for thee" kinda deal."

It's not a Liberal or Conservative thing, it's common courtesy. It takes a fool to infer politics on courtesy.

You are a liar. You accused me of wanting to call "darkies" the "N" word.

 

[goldcatt]

The current legal parameters on individual speech are acceptable to me. Speech at an individual level should be viewed broadly and curtailed only when it impedes on the rights of others or where incitement of violent behavior is both likely and imminent as a direct result of the speech.

Note I'm talking about individual speech here.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.

I see it differently.
I do not use the word as it repulses me...not becuase I would be condemned for using it.

I see it as a word that can be as innocuous as affectionately calling another person a 'silly willy' or "fumble fingers' or otherwise teasing in a way that does not offend. I think many black people direct the word at each other just that way.

When used as an insult or derogatory epithet it is disgusting.

My complaint is that the PC police presume to dictate to me that I can't use it in the harmless way and will always be interpreted as using it in the disgusting way.

It is the same phenomenon when it comes to using the words crosshairs or target or whatever. Those words have been used harmlessly and without referring to any form of violence for as long as I can remember. And I resent now being informed that they will be interpreted one way and one way only and I will be seen as inciting to violence if I use them?

 

[Nosmo King]

It will end up like the "N" word. In liberal land it a "free speech for me but none for thee" kinda deal.

Miss calling the darkies *******, do ya?

Never did. But if it's such a bad word why use it on each other brother?

The same reason steel workers call each other 'Bohunks' and your friends call each other 'idiot'.

Coming from someone other than an African-American it's an epithet. Coming from an African-American it could be a term of endearment.

 

[boedicca]

How bout?

>bribery/campaign contributions by corporations

Bribery is already illegal bub - nor should it be linked to campaign contributions.

You are making a false association.

 

[WillowTree]

Miss calling the darkies *******, do ya?

Never did. But if it's such a bad word why use it on each other brother?

The same reason steel workers call each other 'Bohunks' and your friends call each other 'idiot'.

Coming from someone other than an African-American it's an epithet. Coming from an African-American it could be a term of endearment.

really? endearing? it sounds so warm and cuddly donchyaknow! What if I said it in an endearing tone? like whispering sweet "N" in your ear?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

I took umbrage with willow this time due to her "In liberal land it a "free speech for me but none for thee" kinda deal."

It's not a Liberal or Conservative thing, it's common courtesy. It takes a fool to infer politics on courtesy.

You are a liar. You accused me of wanting to call "darkies" the "N" word.

That is exactly what Nosmos post did.
May not have been Nosms intent...but it is exactly what it did.
And I saw it as completely un called for.

 

[Foxfyre]

The poll choices are inadequate.

The power of the government to limit speech should be rare. The "fire in a movie theater" example is oft cited - and yet is a very specific example of doing something which in the moment may lead to somebody being hurt.

A public figure engaging in "vitriolic" rhetoric is not analogous to said situation. There is no "flash of the moment" aspect which creates unthinking mob or individual action. Each individual listening to such rhetoric has sufficient time and responsibility to make his own decision on how to behave.

Hmmm. Possibly. Considering that the speech being debated refers only to the proposed legislation, what additional poll choices would you add? Or how would you reword the options given?

 

[WillowTree]

Miss calling the darkies *******, do ya?

Never did. But if it's such a bad word why use it on each other brother?

The same reason steel workers call each other 'Bohunks' and your friends call each other 'idiot'.

Coming from someone other than an African-American it's an epithet. Coming from an African-American it could be a term of endearment.

Yo! My friends aren't idiots. You seem to know some idiots though and you stand right there and let them call ya the "N" word.

 

[WillowTree]

I took umbrage with willow this time due to her "In liberal land it a "free speech for me but none for thee" kinda deal."

It's not a Liberal or Conservative thing, it's common courtesy. It takes a fool to infer politics on courtesy.

You are a liar. You accused me of wanting to call "darkies" the "N" word.

That is exactly what Nosmos post did.
May not have been Nosms intent...but it is exactly what it did.
And I saw it as completely un called for.

He's an idiot. And a liar.

 

[Foxfyre]

ATTENTION FOLKS - LET'S DRAG THE TRAIN BACK ONTO THE TRACKS.

I do NOT want to get enmeshed in another diatribe on the "n" word please. And please take any food fights to the Flame Zone. I would very much like for this thread NOT to wind up there.

The analogy is appropriate in how it is interpreted by the people using the word.

My contention is that I don't want my political speech to HAVE to be interpreted in any way other than what I intend by it.

 

[Ozmar]

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:

. . . .For as long as I’ve been alive, crosshairs and bull’s-eyes have been an accepted part of the graphical lexicon when it comes to political debates. Such “inflammatory” words as targeting, attacking, destroying, blasting, crushing, burying, knee-capping, and others have similarly guided political thought and action. Not once have the use of these images or words tempted me or anybody else I know to kill. I’ve listened to, read—and even written!—vicious attacks on government without reaching for my gun. I’ve even gotten angry, for goodness’ sake, without coming close to assassinating a politician or a judge.

From what I can tell, I’m not an outlier. Only the tiniest handful of people—most of whom are already behind bars, in psychiatric institutions, or on psycho-meds—can be driven to kill by political whispers or shouts. Asking us to forever hold our tongues lest we awake their deeper demons infantilizes and neuters us and makes politicians no safer. . . .

. . . .Any call to cool “inflammatory” speech is a call to police all speech, and I can’t think of anybody in government, politics, business, or the press that I would trust with that power. As Jonathan Rauch wrote brilliantly in Harper’s in 1995, “The vocabulary of hate is potentially as rich as your dictionary, and all you do by banning language used by cretins is to let them decide what the rest of us may say.” Rauch added, “Trap the racists and anti-Semites, and you lay a trap for me too. Hunt for them with eradication in your mind, and you have brought dissent itself within your sights.”

Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and, yes, violent imagery—is a good thing. Better that angry people unload their fury in public than let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom. And I’ll punch out the lights of anybody who tries to take it away from me. . . .

The*awesome stupidity of the calls to tamp down political speech in the wake of the Giffords shooting. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

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?

When I see what is happening in the UK, with muslims calling for an end to freedom, destruction of their state, and institution of sharia law, all under the guise of free speech, I believe if it ever comes to that in America, then yes there must be some sort of limit. We haven't reached that stage yet, thankfully.

 

[WillowTree]

ATTENTION FOLKS - LET'S DRAG THE TRAIN BACK ONTO THE TRACKS.

I do NOT want to get enmeshed in another diatribe on the "n" word please. And please take any food fights to the Flame Zone.

The analogy is appropriate in how it is interpreted by the people using the word.

My contention is that I don't want my political speech to HAVE to be interpreted in any way other than what I intend by it.

But that's the point. You already do. You cannot say the N word. Only black people may say the N word.

 

[boedicca]

The poll choices are inadequate.

The power of the government to limit speech should be rare. The "fire in a movie theater" example is oft cited - and yet is a very specific example of doing something which in the moment may lead to somebody being hurt.

A public figure engaging in "vitriolic" rhetoric is not analogous to said situation. There is no "flash of the moment" aspect which creates unthinking mob or individual action. Each individual listening to such rhetoric has sufficient time and responsibility to make his own decision on how to behave.

Hmmm. Possibly. Considering that the speech being debated refers only to the proposed legislation, what additional poll choices would you add? Or how would you reword the options given?

I don't see any reason to make changes to the law. The proposed legislation should be abandoned. It is "thought, speech and symbol" criminalization for political purposes.

No thank you.

 

[Jarhead]

It is not what you say.
It is not how you say it.
It is how the listener opts to interpret it.
That being said, any restriction will open the door to the mute law. All people are not allowed to speak.

 

[Foxfyre]

ATTENTION FOLKS - LET'S DRAG THE TRAIN BACK ONTO THE TRACKS.

I do NOT want to get enmeshed in another diatribe on the "n" word please. And please take any food fights to the Flame Zone.

The analogy is appropriate in how it is interpreted by the people using the word.

My contention is that I don't want my political speech to HAVE to be interpreted in any way other than what I intend by it.

But that's the point. You already do. You cannot say the N word. Only black people may say the N word.

Yes and I think that is wrong. No segment of society should be able to use a word with impunity that ALL in society cannot use with impunity.

So that brings us back to political ads, imagery, graphs, language etc. that Mr. Brady would restrict. Is language used in everyday civilized conversation EVER inappropriate for a political ad, signage, or speech? Should it be?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No, because any word, paragraph, can be open to interpretation and the human mind is subjective. There should be no limitation of free speech.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Anyone who advocates supression of speech should be forced to wear a ball gag for a month.QUOTE]

Given some on this board... that's a normal event I'm guessing.

 

[Nosmo King]

ATTENTION FOLKS - LET'S DRAG THE TRAIN BACK ONTO THE TRACKS.

I do NOT want to get enmeshed in another diatribe on the "n" word please. And please take any food fights to the Flame Zone. I would very much like for this thread NOT to wind up there.

The analogy is appropriate in how it is interpreted by the people using the word.

My contention is that I don't want my political speech to HAVE to be interpreted in any way other than what I intend by it.

That all depends on the tone and timbre of your speech. Make wild accusations about the president and his policies, you step outside that safe zone. Put cross hairs over the photos and districts of your political opposition, again, out of bounds.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's also illegal to murder someone, but it is apparantly worse if you hate muder them because they're _________ Fill in the blank.