What Speech Should Be Acceptable to Restrict?

[mudwhistle]

Seems to me this was another example of how our freedoms work against us.

We don't have the right to put someone away even after they show themselves on several occasions to be mentally disturbed, until after they do something terrible. That is always the problem. It's not the fact that guns exist. It's the fact that we can't do anything preemptive to stop lunatics from murdering us. We can't take their rights away until after it's too late to stop them. Until that changes this will continue, and I have a sinking feeling more will show themselves in the following months.

Another point I'd like to make is that the weapon used is not the problem here. He could have used a car to kill several people and nobody would be talking about banning cars. To be honest, if they were banned hundreds of thousands of people would be alive today that have died in car accidents. Compare how many die in gun related deaths compared to vehicular deaths. The only reason guns are such problem is because the left always goes after guns while they're taking away other freedoms in any country where communism or socialism are being instituted. It's what they live for.

 

[Douger]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaZBm-d5Yqs[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, but the problem is ability to legally interpret ANY innocent metaphor or phrase or imagery as threatening. You don't see a problem with that?

We have workable laws against making threats against the President; we could simply expand those to include Congress members.

From what I understand, this guy didn't threaten her. He shot her. There already are laws that cover that.

What?! Gawd you're a moron.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What Speech Should Be Acceptable to Restrict?

Protests near funerals?

 

[Flopper]

Seems to me this was another example of how our freedoms work against us.

We don't have the right to put someone away even after they show themselves on several occasions to be mentally disturbed, until after they do something terrible. That is always the problem. It's not the fact that guns exist. It's the fact that we can't do anything preemptive to stop lunatics from murdering us. We can't take their rights away until after it's too late to stop them. Until that changes this will continue, and I have a sinking feeling more will show themselves in the following months.

Another point I'd like to make is that the weapon used is not the problem here. He could have used a car to kill several people and nobody would be talking about banning cars. To be honest, if they were banned hundreds of thousands of people would be alive today that have died in car accidents. Compare how many die in gun related deaths compared to vehicular deaths. The only reason guns are such problem is because the left always goes after guns while they're taking away other freedoms in any country where communism or socialism are being instituted. It's what they live for.

I consider myself a liberal but I don't favor banning guns because it would not accomplish the intended goals and it would be unconstitutional. Let's face it. We are a very violent society. Until we stop glorifying violence and teach our kids that violence is not an acceptable solution to our problems nothing is going to change. Maybe in four or five hundred years we will become truly civilized.

 

[Flopper]

I would like to see only Glenn Beck restricted.

He's so friggin melodramatic that...actually, he's kind of funny.

I change my mind...Glenn Beck can remain.

Well if you decide again that he should be restricted I can show you how to change the station on your radio or where the channel changer is on your TV remote.

The thing is Beck is ultra non partisan. Republicans and Democrats alike are in his crosshairs for criticism and he is no respector of party affiliation and he pulls no punches in telling it like he thinks it is. Anybody who spends any time on his quite sophisticated teachings can't help but learn something or else will know where to go to check it all out. He got my attention when he took on Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, as the one who pushed us onto the slippery slope of ever increasing socialism and worse. That sent me back to the history books and voila, he was right.

But despite 15 hours of radio broadcasts each week and five hours of highly rated television shows each week, not a single act of violence can be traced to Beck's show. And I dare say nobody will be able to find a single phrase, clause, word, or image used in any of his programming that encourages or condones violence of any kind toward anybody.

Beck is so hated because he tells the truth about things our fearless leaders really REALLY don't want known or targeted for attention.

I doubt that any single broadcaster or writer is responsible for this type of violence. But when you couple together the hate rhetoric of the Limbaughs, Obermans, Becks, and the double meaning messages of the lock and load crowd, you're going to encourage these nuts to take violent action.

 

[Revere]

He didn't watch TV news or listen to political radio.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, but the problem is ability to legally interpret ANY innocent metaphor or phrase or imagery as threatening. You don't see a problem with that?

We have workable laws against making threats against the President; we could simply expand those to include Congress members.

From what I understand, this guy didn't threaten her. He shot her. There already are laws that cover that.

Yep. Also laws covering explicit threats directed at another person. Shoot, a personally directed threat on USMB toward any member or member's family merits banning does it not?

The question here is whether putting crosshairs or a target over a congressional district or seat or using such metaphors in political rhetoric constitutes a 'threat' or incites violence given that such imagery and language is and has always been commonplace.

We've given numerous examples now of non-violent use of such imagery and language, all of which have been religiously ignored by our friends who insist that ANY use of such graphics or language is directly responsible for violence committed.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would like to see only Glenn Beck restricted.

He's so friggin melodramatic that...actually, he's kind of funny.

I change my mind...Glenn Beck can remain.

Well if you decide again that he should be restricted I can show you how to change the station on your radio or where the channel changer is on your TV remote.

The thing is Beck is ultra non partisan. Republicans and Democrats alike are in his crosshairs for criticism and he is no respector of party affiliation and he pulls no punches in telling it like he thinks it is. Anybody who spends any time on his quite sophisticated teachings can't help but learn something or else will know where to go to check it all out. He got my attention when he took on Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, as the one who pushed us onto the slippery slope of ever increasing socialism and worse. That sent me back to the history books and voila, he was right.

But despite 15 hours of radio broadcasts each week and five hours of highly rated television shows each week, not a single act of violence can be traced to Beck's show. And I dare say nobody will be able to find a single phrase, clause, word, or image used in any of his programming that encourages or condones violence of any kind toward anybody.

Beck is so hated because he tells the truth about things our fearless leaders really REALLY don't want known or targeted for attention.

I doubt that any single broadcaster or writer is responsible for this type of violence. But when you couple together the hate rhetoric of the Limbaughs, Obermans, Becks, and the double meaning messages of the lock and load crowd, you're going to encourage these nuts to take violent action.

And the figures you just mentioned receive death threats or other threats of violence on a regular basis.

Are statements like yours referring to their programs as 'hate speech' responsible for that? Should a leash be put on you?

 

[Talismen]

I answered "No" in the poll, because of the following:

1. Too many assclowns in this world are offended and set off by the most harmless things.
2. Perception is the name of the game, and it can ONLY be controlled by the individual. It is NOT "idiot proof".
3. There are those, in the media, in politics, in our daily lives, and online who make it their business to skew context into something that fits their agenda.

 

[Flopper]

Slander, libel, threats, harassment, inciting immediate violence (and I mean telling people to assault/murder people and actually mean it), false advertising, perjury ... can't think of any others at the moment, but calling the left or the right evil should definitely stay protected.

Skilled propagandists such as Beck or Limbaugh never tell their audience to take violate action. They allow their audience to draw that conclusion on their own. This is the most effective propaganda. You lead the thirsty horse to water and he will do the rest on his own.

 

[Foxfyre]

I answered "No" in the poll, because of the following:

1. Too many assclowns in this world are offended and set off by the most harmless things.
2. Perception is the name of the game, and it can ONLY be controlled by the individual. It is NOT "idiot proof".
3. There are those, in the media, in politics, in our daily lives, and online who make it their business to skew context into something that fits their agenda.

Well said.

The evidence to me is obvious. No incident of violence can be traced to any popular conservative programming nor any political ad or any Tea Party or similar event.

So why now, after DECADES of use with no problems evident, is the radical Left wanting to put restraints on certain imagery and conservative programming? Or certain aspects of the Internet?

The only logical answer is they want to control the message and that's the only way they see to do it in this new information age. And personally I think ALL Americans are idiots if they don't have a problem with any group wanting to control the sociopolitical message by shutting up somebody else.

 

[Foxfyre]

Slander, libel, threats, harassment, inciting immediate violence (and I mean telling people to assault/murder people and actually mean it), false advertising, perjury ... can't think of any others at the moment, but calling the left or the right evil should definitely stay protected.

Skilled propagandists such as Beck or Limbaugh never tell their audience to take violate action. They allow their audience to draw that conclusion on their own. This is the most effective propaganda. You lead the thirsty horse to water and he will do the rest on his own.

Please provide a specific example IN FULL CONTEXT that would support your comment here so that I won't have to think that your remarks are a) unadulterated crap or b) born out of your own irrational or programmed hatred for anybody who disagrees with you or c) intended to promote censorship by those who will make anything up in order to justify that.

Again are you responsible for the death threats directed at Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly et al? Please explain how your references to their remarks as 'hate speech' do not contribute to death threats directed at them.

 

[Talismen]

I answered "No" in the poll, because of the following:

1. Too many assclowns in this world are offended and set off by the most harmless things.
2. Perception is the name of the game, and it can ONLY be controlled by the individual. It is NOT "idiot proof".
3. There are those, in the media, in politics, in our daily lives, and online who make it their business to skew context into something that fits their agenda.

Well said.

The evidence to me is obvious. No incident of violence can be traced to any popular conservative programming nor any political ad or any Tea Party or similar event.

So why now, after DECADES of use with no problems evident, is the radical Left wanting to put restraints on certain imagery and conservative programming? Or certain aspects of the Internet?

The only logical answer is they want to control the message and that's the only way they see to do it in this new information age. And personally I think ALL Americans are idiots if they don't have a problem with any group wanting to control the sociopolitical message by shutting up somebody else.

Thanks, and that's exactly correct.

Couple that with the fact that they will "never let a crisis go to waste", and they know the time is now for an attempt to legislate government control over "the message".

I read something last year...Some brilliant poster on some blog somewhere wrote something about the criminalization of dissent. Noted how, pre WWII, Hitler jailed the unemployed to "deflate" the numbers and make the German economy look better.

Those jails?....Eventually turned into concentration camps.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is considerable jurisprudence on this issue.
I don't see any reason to expand it in any way.

 

[Claudette]

Slander, libel, threats, harassment, inciting immediate violence (and I mean telling people to assault/murder people and actually mean it), false advertising, perjury ... can't think of any others at the moment, but calling the left or the right evil should definitely stay protected.

Skilled propagandists such as Beck or Limbaugh never tell their audience to take violate action. They allow their audience to draw that conclusion on their own. This is the most effective propaganda. You lead the thirsty horse to water and he will do the rest on his own.

If that were the case then we would have bodies everywhere.

Your premise is bs in my opinion.

However. Your more than welcome to try again.

 

[Flopper]

We have workable laws against making threats against the President; we could simply expand those to include Congress members.

From what I understand, this guy didn't threaten her. He shot her. There already are laws that cover that.

Yep. Also laws covering explicit threats directed at another person. Shoot, a personally directed threat on USMB toward any member or member's family merits banning does it not?

The question here is whether putting crosshairs or a target over a congressional district or seat or using such metaphors in political rhetoric constitutes a 'threat' or incites violence given that such imagery and language is and has always been commonplace.

We've given numerous examples now of non-violent use of such imagery and language, all of which have been religiously ignored by our friends who insist that ANY use of such graphics or language is directly responsible for violence committed.

Using metaphors such as putting crosshairs on congressmen or it's time to lock and load are intended to rally supporters to take decisive peaceful actions but these are metaphors that clearly have double meanings. Most people will not take this as a call for violence but rather a call for peaceful political action. However,the emotionally unstable, and there are plenty of those that are political junkies, may well draw a different conclusion. I question why is it necessary to use such inflammatory language. There are plenty of other good arguments and slogans available.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Skilled propagandists such as Beck or Limbaugh never tell their audience to take violate action. They allow their audience to draw that conclusion on their own. This is the most effective propaganda. You lead the thirsty horse to water and he will do the rest on his own.

Both Limbaugh and Beck have audiences numbering in tens of millions.
If you are right - where are the piles of bodies?

 

[Flopper]

Slander, libel, threats, harassment, inciting immediate violence (and I mean telling people to assault/murder people and actually mean it), false advertising, perjury ... can't think of any others at the moment, but calling the left or the right evil should definitely stay protected.

Skilled propagandists such as Beck or Limbaugh never tell their audience to take violate action. They allow their audience to draw that conclusion on their own. This is the most effective propaganda. You lead the thirsty horse to water and he will do the rest on his own.

If that were the case then we would have bodies everywhere.

Your premise is bs in my opinion.

However. Your more than welcome to try again.

I'm not saying there is a lot of politically inspired violence. We certainly would have a lot more if these people really wanted it but there goals are financial and not political. The Becks, Limbaughs, Obermans, and the like are making millions off the idiots who prefer to listen to propaganda as opposed to real political discussions and debates.

 

[Talismen]

Skilled propagandists such as Beck or Limbaugh never tell their audience to take violate action. They allow their audience to draw that conclusion on their own. This is the most effective propaganda. You lead the thirsty horse to water and he will do the rest on his own.

If that were the case then we would have bodies everywhere.

Your premise is bs in my opinion.

However. Your more than welcome to try again.

I'm not saying there is a lot of politically inspired violence. We certainly would have a lot more if these people really wanted it but there goals are financial and not political. The Becks, Limbaughs, Obermans, and the like are making millions off the idiots who prefer to listen to propaganda as opposed to real political discussions and debates.

Perhaps, but people listen to Beck, Limbaugh, olbermann and others because they (the listeners) somehow identify with what those folks are saying or talking about.

I listen to Rush on occassion. Listented to him more in the past.
But, his comment yesterday isn't helping anything.

I watch and listen to Beck on occassion.
But, I'm not always in agreement with him.

I don't listen to or watch olbermann because I find a crusty pork rind more tasteful than he is.

People don't like Limbaugh and Beck because mixed in with the rhetoric, is much truth.
They HATE both of them for getting things right. They don't dare admit that to anyone, much less themselves, but it's true. And I'm not saying that to take a pot-shot...It's just plain fact.

People often times hate what is different, if that "different" means that they themselves are wrong.