What Speech Should Be Acceptable to Restrict?

[Jarhead]

I can see it now...Tom Brady refusing to playbecuase Mark Sanchez says in a press conference "we got their number"....
I can see it now...
Tom Brady:

"I refuse to enter the field of play. They threatened me and I now fear for my life"

Repeating one paragraph from Shafer's essay quoted in the OP:

. . . .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 (anyone).

Its all crap and just another example of the left not happy with America.
Now they want us to watch every dam word we use....because someone may take it out of context.

 

[Jarhead]

How about that Golf analyst who used the term lynch mob when referring to the other golfers getting beaten up on the course by Tiger Woods. The entire left ranted and raved....yet Tiger Woods was not bothered by it one bit.
Ironically, she was one of Tigers closest friends and she had no idea of the history of the term lynch mob.
Yet...she was forced by the left to apologize to him and to her audience.

LOL....We are going to find ourselves in trouble for saying "we are gonna beat your asses" on the football field.

I think you're last statement may be occurring already since some schools are not keeping score during games and such due to offending the losing team.

I remember playing dodgeball in 6th grade in Kentucky. There was no mercy. We lined up behind a brick wall while two threw the ball. We were bruised, bloodied, scraped, but hell, it was fun.

Yep...and now dodgeball is banned in many schools.

Not keeping score? Common practice in the middle school for all sports in my area.....and they are not allowed to publish winners and losers....yet the chess club has the right to announce the winners over the scchool intercom and publish it in the school newspper...which I find ironic. Why do they think a chess match loser is more resilient than a losing football team?

I played football from the age of 8 through high school. Scores were kept, published and announced. My JV and Varsity teams won a total of 4 games over my 4 years. I had the choice not to play. I wanted to play.

I am no worse the wear....still have the articles of our games...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I can see it now...Tom Brady refusing to playbecuase Mark Sanchez says in a press conference "we got their number"....
I can see it now...
Tom Brady:

"I refuse to enter the field of play. They threatened me and I now fear for my life"

Repeating one paragraph from Shafer's essay quoted in the OP:

. . . .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 (anyone).

Its all crap and just another example of the left not happy with America.
Now they want us to watch every dam word we use....because someone may take it out of context.

These typese just need to grow the hell up and frankly, strap on a set and stop being emotional basket cases.

 

[BlindBoo]

Wonder how long before Bubba from Arkansas comes out and officially blames it all on Rush Limbaugh like he did after OK City?

Oh I say about as long as it take Rush to say "that Clinton had “set the stage for violence in this country”.....opps too late, elRushbo already said it!

Clinton: Rush Limbaugh Comment ?Doesn?t Make Any Sense? - Political Punch

 

[Foxfyre]

Yep. When I get ready to throw the first bowling ball on our Wii and say to my opponent, "Get ready to be crushed", I really am not thinking about dropping a piano on him.

When I am strategizing to win back a lucrative client from a competitor and suggest that "We can cut them off at the knees if we. . . . .", I don't have a chain saw in mind.

And when I am grumbling about the stupidity of some local or state politician and mutter, "They ought to hang him. . . ." I really don't have a noose in mind.

Again these are all part and parcel of the American language and culture. And I think any politican who presumes to make more of them than what they are ought to be. . . . . .

 

[mudwhistle]

Target needs to change it's name because that word is now out of bounds.

Let's call them Tmart.

 

[hjmick]

Except for yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, no speech should be restricted. It is a treacherous road we travel when we start putting limits on what we can say. Where do you start? Where does it end? What's on the list of what is acceptable and what is not? I don't like what you say, you don't like what I say, who decides what's allowed and what is not?

This is one of the cornerstones of our nation:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I will gladly risk being offended by an occasional idea I do not agree with, I will happily defend a persons right to harbor and express those ideas in a reasoned and socially acceptable fashion. The freedom of speech in this country is perhaps the most important right of it's citizens.

No, I'll keep my free speech, thank you very much.

And a hearty fuck you to whomever may try to take it from me.

 

[mudwhistle]

Except for yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, no speech should be restricted. It is a treacherous road we travel when we start putting limits on what we can say. Where do you start? Where does it end? What's on the list of what is acceptable and what is not? I don't like what you say, you don't like what I say, who decides what's allowed and what is not?

This is one of the cornerstones of our nation:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I will gladly risk being offended by an occasional idea I do not agree with, I will happily defend a persons right to harbor and express those ideas in a reasoned and socially acceptable fashion. The freedom of speech in this country is perhaps the most important right of it's citizens.

No, I'll keep my free speech, thank you very much.

And a hearty fuck you to whomever may try to take it from me.

Obama and the Dems have been looking for an excuse to stifle freedom of speech. This and Wikileaks just adds to the list of excuses.....along with Fox News and Talk Radio.

Funny; I always thought that Hollywood movies and violent media coverage spurred lunatics more so towards insane acts then Conservatives defending themselves from senseless attacks from Democrats in Congress the last several years.

The very same idiots who castigate others for the harsh political climate are guilty of it themselves more then any. Witness Dick (Turban) Durban talking about it this weekend. Instead of talking about calm and consideration for the morning families of the dead he talks about how others have caused this vitriol that is being talked about everywhere today.

What an asshole.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqwuut1y65s[/ame]

 

[AquaAthena]

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.

I agree. We have the ability to learn the truth of a person, only by listening to them speak their minds. We can, sooner than later, determine whom we support. We must have free speech and free airwaves, for freedom to survive.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

I agree. We have the ability to learn the truth of a person, only by listening to them speak their minds. We can, sooner than later, determine whom we support. We must have free speech and free airwaves, for freedom to survive.

Course it wouldn't hurt if fuckheads like Durbin shut their mouths and stopped spewing their hate-filled rhetoric.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is sometimes such a disconnect. Blindboo up there linked to a website accusing Rush of accusing Clinton. Well let's put it into its full context with an unedited transcript of that particular segment of Rush's show:

Bill Clinton Links Talk Radio, Tea Parties to Non-Existent Terrorism


Rush's comment was after a long string of accusations former President Clinton had launched against talk radio, against the Tea Partiers, against conservative commentary with the implication back in 1995 and then again recently that it was rhetoric that you find on Rush's shows or at the Tea Party events that was fueling violence. Of course Clinton couldn't provide any proof of any connection to ANY violence promoted by Rush's show or any other talk show or the Tea Party events, but that didn't matter. If Clinton said it was so, his audience is supposed to swallow that hook, line, and sinker.

Yet somehow, any death threats or disruption of Tea Party events by infiltrators is certainly not the doing of any of the folks preaching hate speech against conservative talk radio, the Tea Partiers, etc.

In both cases such connections are absurd. But that doesn't matter. If it can be politicized there are always those more than willing to politicize it.

It's like many on the Left discount any connection of Islam or Muslims with Muslims who commit violent acts or Jihadist site that contain a litany of violence.

But they accuse talk radio, Fox News, and Tea Partiers with promoting violence when no act of violence has ever been associated with any of them.

No effort to shut up those committing violence.

But shut up talk radio, take Fox off the air, and so demonize the Tea Partiers that they will dissolve?

It's nuts.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

hardly, campaign contributions are often bribes.

 

[loosecannon]

Except for yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, no speech should be restricted. It is a treacherous road we travel when we start putting limits on what we can say. Where do you start? Where does it end? What's on the list of what is acceptable and what is not? I don't like what you say, you don't like what I say, who decides what's allowed and what is not?

This is one of the cornerstones of our nation:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

>inciting violence, revolution, acts of terrorism

>any attempt at seducing children

>conspiracy

>criminal acts

>Public endangerment ("FIRE")

>disclosing classified information

>slander

>threats against public officials

>lying to federal officials

>public pornography

That is a list just off the top of my head of forms of speech that are already prohibited in the USA.

 

[Foxfyre]

Except for yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, no speech should be restricted. It is a treacherous road we travel when we start putting limits on what we can say. Where do you start? Where does it end? What's on the list of what is acceptable and what is not? I don't like what you say, you don't like what I say, who decides what's allowed and what is not?

This is one of the cornerstones of our nation:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

>inciting violence, revolution, acts of terrorism

>any attempt at seducing children

>conspiracy

>criminal acts

>Public endangerment ("FIRE")

>disclosing classified information

>slander

>threats against public officials

>lying to federal officials

>public pornography

That is a list just off the top of my head of forms of speech that are already prohibited in the USA.

All good points. In other words, speech that violates the unalienable rights of others is and should be forbidden.

But what rights of anybody are violated by opinions expressed at Tea Parties? On radio talk shows? On Fox News?

If somebody expresses an opinion about what the government should do or how this social statute should read or whatever, and I disagree, even using very strong language, how does that violate anybody's rights?

Does anybody seriously believe that my strong disagreement is incitement to riot? A threat? An invitation for violence? Illegal? Or should be? Can anybody point to ANY evidence that political and social commentary from conservative sources triggers violence any more than political and social commentary from liberals triggers violence?

 

[loosecannon]

But what rights of anybody are violated by opinions expressed at Tea Parties? On radio talk shows? On Fox News?

If somebody expresses an opinion about what the government should do or how this social statute should read or whatever, and I disagree, even using very strong language, how does that violate anybody's rights?

Does anybody seriously believe that my strong disagreement is incitement to riot? A threat? An invitation for violence? Illegal? Or should be? Can anybody point to ANY evidence that political and social commentary from conservative sources triggers violence any more than political and social commentary from liberals triggers violence?

I don't think anybody has suggested that you should be prohibited from expressing your political opinion.

But on the other hand there are examples of folks who do so on public media outlets day in and day out and they may have been significant factors in igniting acts of domestic terrorism.

For example Obama ordered the assassination of a US born Yemeni cleric on the grounds that he incited the Fort Hood shooter to go ballistic. No trial, no evidence presented, just an extrajudicial execution. Of a US citizen.

If that premise is sound it applies to other cases by extension.

 

[Jackson]

I believe we've been blindsided by the left as what is the REAL problem here. It isn't restricting speech, it's targeting troubled youth and psychiatric problems they have. Holding parents responsible or schools when the student's behavior exhibit a danger to themselves or others.

Authorities should be called in as well as parents notified and mandatory evaluations and treatment done.

 

[Foxfyre]

But what rights of anybody are violated by opinions expressed at Tea Parties? On radio talk shows? On Fox News?

If somebody expresses an opinion about what the government should do or how this social statute should read or whatever, and I disagree, even using very strong language, how does that violate anybody's rights?

Does anybody seriously believe that my strong disagreement is incitement to riot? A threat? An invitation for violence? Illegal? Or should be? Can anybody point to ANY evidence that political and social commentary from conservative sources triggers violence any more than political and social commentary from liberals triggers violence?

I don't think anybody has suggested that you should be prohibited from expressing your political opinion.

But on the other hand there are examples of folks who do so on public media outlets day in and day out and they may have been significant factors in igniting acts of domestic terrorism.

For example Obama ordered the assassination of a US born Yemeni cleric on the grounds that he incited the Fort Hood shooter to go ballistic. No trial, no evidence presented, just an extrajudicial execution. Of a US citizen.

If that premise is sound it applies to other cases by extension.

Nonsense. Anwar al-Awlaki as a leading figure of al Qaida has been intentionally, purposefully, and specifically calling for terrorist attacks on Americans and America for a long time now. Obama may have used the Ft. Hood incident to be an example of result of that and, without specific proof that such was the case, there is room to question Obama's rhetoric in that regard.

But unless you can point to a single incident of a talk show host, Fox News commentator or anchor or contributor, or a Tea Party event - or any such liberal sources for that matter - calling for ANY kind of violence, let alone specific violence targeted at any person or government or America in general, the two situations are completely unrelated.

 

[loosecannon]

But what rights of anybody are violated by opinions expressed at Tea Parties? On radio talk shows? On Fox News?

If somebody expresses an opinion about what the government should do or how this social statute should read or whatever, and I disagree, even using very strong language, how does that violate anybody's rights?

Does anybody seriously believe that my strong disagreement is incitement to riot? A threat? An invitation for violence? Illegal? Or should be? Can anybody point to ANY evidence that political and social commentary from conservative sources triggers violence any more than political and social commentary from liberals triggers violence?

I don't think anybody has suggested that you should be prohibited from expressing your political opinion.

But on the other hand there are examples of folks who do so on public media outlets day in and day out and they may have been significant factors in igniting acts of domestic terrorism.

For example Obama ordered the assassination of a US born Yemeni cleric on the grounds that he incited the Fort Hood shooter to go ballistic. No trial, no evidence presented, just an extrajudicial execution. Of a US citizen.

If that premise is sound it applies to other cases by extension.

Nonsense. Anwar al-Awlaki as a leading figure of al Qaida has been intentionally, purposefully, and specifically calling for terrorist attacks on Americans and America for a long time now. Obama may have used the Ft. Hood incident to be an example of result of that and, without specific proof that such was the case, there is room to question Obama's rhetoric in that regard.

But unless you can point to a single incident of a talk show host, Fox News commentator or anchor or contributor, or a Tea Party event - or any such liberal sources for that matter - calling for ANY kind of violence, let alone specific violence targeted at any person or government or America in general, the two situations are completely unrelated.

I think there are hundreds of cases of folks who have called for violence esp regarding targets like abortion docs. The widely publicized campaign ads featuring cross hairs may or may not skirt that line but I think examples are abundant.

 

[loosecannon]

I believe we've been blindsided by the left as what is the REAL problem here. It isn't restricting speech, it's targeting troubled youth and psychiatric problems they have. Holding parents responsible or schools when the student's behavior exhibit a danger to themselves or others.

Authorities should be called in as well as parents notified and mandatory evaluations and treatment done.

since a lot of mental health issues are hereditary are you suggesting that crazy parents should be criminally liable for what their crazy kids do as adults?

That sounds crazy to me.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think there are hundreds of cases of folks who have called for violence esp regarding targets like abortion docs. The widely publicized campaign ads featuring cross hairs may or may not skirt that line but I think examples are abundant.

According to the last Gallup poll on abortion views, 51% of Americans identify themselves as pro life. The conservative talk show hosts and I am guessing most Fox News contributors and possibly a majority of Tea Partiers would fall within that 51%. Hundreds of thousands of people attended Tea Parties over the last two years. Easily a half million were at Glenn Beck's "Restore Honor" rally. Tens of millions listen in to Fox News and conservative talk radio every week.

Attacks on abortion clinics or abortion doctors are extremely rare.

Still want to try to make that connection?

The shooter in the Arizona incident was professed Atheist. His apparent target was a professed Christian. Could all presumed claims of superiority by Atheists and the rhetoric accusing and demeaning Christianity have been a factor? I'm not willing to make that leap. Are you?

The shooter in the Arizona incident was a registered independent. And showed a video of a flag burning as one of his favorites. Shall we say that indiependents are dangerous? That defending flag burning as free speech contributed to his insanity? I'm not willing to make that leap. Are you?

How much are you willing to restrict American freedoms because there could possibly be....might be....or someday will be a connection between some nut case wigging out and an opinion expressed on television or on the radio or at a rally?