What Speech Should Be Acceptable to Restrict?

[Truthmatters]

"State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda" by Susan Bachrach and Steven Luckert
sounds interesting

 

[Rozman]

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.

And they should be forced to watch Pulp Fiction so they get the full meaning.

 

[Flopper]

I'm not meaning to intentionally rag on you specifically, Flopper, because you have been debating competently and respectfully and I appreciate that very much. Kudos despite the flaws in your argument that I think I see.

The point I am making and that you so far have not addressed is that there is no evidence of ANY kind that use of any graphics or the political commentary found in conservative or liberal media has ever incited or encouraged anybody, mentally unbalanced or otherwise, to violence.

Invariably such violence, if it can be traced to anything other than mental imbalance, seems to be triggered by specific government action (McVeigh protesting Koresh's Mt. Carmel and Ruby Ridge) or some seemingly innocuous trigger--Reagan's attempted assassin wanted to impress Jodie Foster. Shall we outlaw movies because some nut was infatuated with a movie star to that extent?

Squeaky Fromme targeted President Ford because she wanted a new trial for Charles Manson. The Unabomber defended his bombings as extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom necessitated by modern technologies. We to this day do not know why Oswald shot Kennedy, but there was no talk radio and very little political commentary on television at that time. As he apparentlly isn't cooperating, we don't know why the Arizona shooter committed that tragic act, but he was not affiliated with a political party, he didn't watch any news on television, didn't listen to any talk radio, and embraced delusions that had nothing to do with any of that.

Looking back over history Booth shot Lincoln over grief of the Confederacy losing the Civil War.

Guiteau after killing President Garfield wrote: "Washington June 16, 1881. To the American People: I conceived the idea of removing the President four weeks ago. Not a soul knew of my purpose. I conceived the idea myself and kept it to myself. I read the newspapers carefully, for and against the Administration, and gradually the convictions settled on me that the President's removal was a political necessity, because he proved a traitor to the men that made him, and thereby imperiled the life of the Republic."

Schrank said he was instructed by a ghost in a dream to kill Teddy Roosevelt. Seven years later, Roosevelt went to his grave with the bulllet Schrank put in him.

It is believed that an attempted assassination of FDR was an organized crime project and was not specifically targeted at the President.

An assassination attempt targeting Harry Truman was committed by Puerto Rican activists.

Nixon's would be assassin was prompted by a thwarted plane hijack attempt.

Where do we find a specific pattern in all of this? There isn't one. Where can you point to any violent act committed by somebody who took his cues from radio, television, or Tea Party events? You can't.

So again. You obviously hold radio and news commentators in high disregard and refer to what they do in strong negative language. Are you responsible for hateful people or nuts launching death threats at them? Should YOUR speech be restricted lest somebody wig out and actually carry out those threats?

Or do we take the realistic and reasonable view that such bad acts are committed by bad or mentally ill people and only the most extreme believe that restricting the freedoms of the rest of the world will have any good effect to prevent such bad acts?

Good points. I believe violent political rhetoric is not directly responsible for these acts by simply adds wood to fire. This is difficult to prove but there is historical evidence.

For example, Leon Czolgosz who assinated McKinley became interested in anarchism in the years preceding the McKinley murder. He attended a number of speeches given by renowned anarchist Emma Goldman, who openly advocated the overthrow of government. In the 1960's, liberal propaganda certainly encourage the violence. Look at the book "The Moon is Down" by Steinbeck. It certainly led to increased violence in the Nazi occupied countries. Propaganda legitimizes aggression by conveying the message that something has to be done regarding a targeted group or person. It is impossible to establish to what degree a single piece of propaganda is responsible for a violent act, but it's just common sense to believe that it's a contributing factor.

Flopper, propaganda encouraging violence indeed encouages violence among those who are agreeable to violence. The cases you cite are those explicitly encouraging people to use whatever means are necessary, legal or illegal, including violence, to overthrow the government or punish whomever is targeting as the enemy at any given time.

I have NEVER heard Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Palin, any Tea Party speaker or even the likes of Maddow, Maher, or Olbermann suggest any such violence. Nor have you. That isn't what they do. All express a specific ideology that includes criticism of opposing ideologies or specific actions. None suggest anything other than peaceful lawful means of furthering their point of view or correcting a bad act. They might suggest really bad law be created which is sort of what this thread is about.

At some point sane and rational people need to make a clear distinction and appropriately recognize, define and address that these are two very different things.

Again are you and others like you promoting death threats against talk show hosts because you express your opinion that you don't like what they say? The death threats are happening. Should we forbid criticism of all public figures just in case you might be encouraging them? Or is it absurd to believe that you criticizing, even in harsh language, something somebody says provides license for somebody to commit a bad act against them?

You can incite violence without ever mentioning a violent act. The Nazis did it very effectively.

It's one thing to criticize the actions of government officials. It's something else to launch personal attacks, saying they hate America, claiming they are terrorist, and criticizing their religious belief. This is becoming all too common. We seem to feel that discrediting a person's work and ideas is not enough, we need to have the voters actually hate the person. We did this with George Bush and we are doing with Obama.

 

[Flopper]

Hate and violence go together like tea and coffee. It’s natural in political discourse to express hatred for an idea, philosophy, program, or law. However, when the hatred becomes a personal attack, it encourages violence against the person. When that hatred is coming from you or I, the barber, or your next-door neighbor, there is little danger because the audience is so small. But when personal attacks are persistent and come from skilled propagandists with large followings then there is real danger that these verbal attacks will encourage violence.

Talk show hosts cultivate this hatred. It’s there business. An audience comes to them each day for their daily dose and they get it.

A much greater problem than an occasional outbreak of violence is political polarization. You see it on this message board. The Right and Left complain that the opposition can’t understand their position and they are correct. The reason is they have been brainwashed to the extent that they cannot listen to the opposition. The first act of a new president or congress is to attempt to nullify all actions of the previous opposition president or congress. Bills in Congress are voted down simply because the opposition introduced them. Then the party in power introduces the same bill and it passes. Because of the hostility between the two sides, fixing the deficit or the economy will be virtually impossible. No, the greatest danger that these hate mongers pose is not attacks in the streets but rather attacks against the nation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Good points. I believe violent political rhetoric is not directly responsible for these acts by simply adds wood to fire. This is difficult to prove but there is historical evidence.

For example, Leon Czolgosz who assinated McKinley became interested in anarchism in the years preceding the McKinley murder. He attended a number of speeches given by renowned anarchist Emma Goldman, who openly advocated the overthrow of government. In the 1960's, liberal propaganda certainly encourage the violence. Look at the book "The Moon is Down" by Steinbeck. It certainly led to increased violence in the Nazi occupied countries. Propaganda legitimizes aggression by conveying the message that something has to be done regarding a targeted group or person. It is impossible to establish to what degree a single piece of propaganda is responsible for a violent act, but it's just common sense to believe that it's a contributing factor.

Flopper, propaganda encouraging violence indeed encouages violence among those who are agreeable to violence. The cases you cite are those explicitly encouraging people to use whatever means are necessary, legal or illegal, including violence, to overthrow the government or punish whomever is targeting as the enemy at any given time.

I have NEVER heard Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Palin, any Tea Party speaker or even the likes of Maddow, Maher, or Olbermann suggest any such violence. Nor have you. That isn't what they do. All express a specific ideology that includes criticism of opposing ideologies or specific actions. None suggest anything other than peaceful lawful means of furthering their point of view or correcting a bad act. They might suggest really bad law be created which is sort of what this thread is about.

At some point sane and rational people need to make a clear distinction and appropriately recognize, define and address that these are two very different things.

Again are you and others like you promoting death threats against talk show hosts because you express your opinion that you don't like what they say? The death threats are happening. Should we forbid criticism of all public figures just in case you might be encouraging them? Or is it absurd to believe that you criticizing, even in harsh language, something somebody says provides license for somebody to commit a bad act against them?

You can incite violence without ever mentioning a violent act. The Nazis did it very effectively.

It's one thing to criticize the actions of government officials. It's something else to launch personal attacks, saying they hate America, claiming they are terrorist, and criticizing their religious belief. This is becoming all too common. We seem to feel that discrediting a person's work and ideas is not enough, we need to have the voters actually hate the person. We did this with George Bush and we are doing with Obama.

I agree that unfounded ad hominem attacks and personal insults are not constructive in any debate. That's why I am happy to report that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly et al are not engaging in that. If you would spend some time actually listening to their rationale instead of selected soundbites, you would know that.

For instance, it is neither ad hominem nor a personal insult to label one as a Marxist or as who promotes Marxist ideology when he or she admires Marxists, surrounds himself with people of Marxist convictions, writes comments that might have fit nicely into the Communist Manifesto, and unmistakably states Marxist concepts.

Any who think the person is mislabeled should be able to give specific reasons why the person is not a Marxist and/or harbors no Marxist ideology.

To simply state that it is hate speech to use the term not only will not hold up in 'court' but doesn't change the fact when the term is properly applied.

Ignorant people think Marx was hateful, the devil himself and to make such comparisons is calling a person hateful or the devil. Or ignorant people may see it as hate speech and inciting to violence.

Educated people will see it for what it is: informed acknowledgment of a way of thinking, a concept of governing, a method of achieving certain goals that can be of either evil motives or noble motives. Karl Marx himself was not an evil man; just one with really misguided and dangerous ideas.

Marx himself incited no one to violence, however. And ordinary Marxist rhetoric incites no one to violence. And pointing out that it is Marxism or Marxist concepts and being critical of Marxism or Marxist concepts incites no one to violence.

I strongly disagree with you that those who promote the Constitution and law while they tell the truth they believe, are those inciting to violence. They may sometimes get it wrong, but the conservatives on talk radio, television, or at Tea Parties are not not inciting anyone to violence.

Those who intend to incite violence, with whatever words or phrases they choose to do that, are the only ones inciting anyone to violence.

Those who call or write in threats to conservative talk show hosts or anybody in Congress or anybody else are inciting to violence. They are bottom feeders, the dregs of society, contemptible, and vile and despicable. And they should not be allowed to live and walk among us.

 

[Flopper]

Flopper, propaganda encouraging violence indeed encouages violence among those who are agreeable to violence. The cases you cite are those explicitly encouraging people to use whatever means are necessary, legal or illegal, including violence, to overthrow the government or punish whomever is targeting as the enemy at any given time.

I have NEVER heard Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Palin, any Tea Party speaker or even the likes of Maddow, Maher, or Olbermann suggest any such violence. Nor have you. That isn't what they do. All express a specific ideology that includes criticism of opposing ideologies or specific actions. None suggest anything other than peaceful lawful means of furthering their point of view or correcting a bad act. They might suggest really bad law be created which is sort of what this thread is about.

At some point sane and rational people need to make a clear distinction and appropriately recognize, define and address that these are two very different things.

Again are you and others like you promoting death threats against talk show hosts because you express your opinion that you don't like what they say? The death threats are happening. Should we forbid criticism of all public figures just in case you might be encouraging them? Or is it absurd to believe that you criticizing, even in harsh language, something somebody says provides license for somebody to commit a bad act against them?

You can incite violence without ever mentioning a violent act. The Nazis did it very effectively.

It's one thing to criticize the actions of government officials. It's something else to launch personal attacks, saying they hate America, claiming they are terrorist, and criticizing their religious belief. This is becoming all too common. We seem to feel that discrediting a person's work and ideas is not enough, we need to have the voters actually hate the person. We did this with George Bush and we are doing with Obama.

I agree that unfounded ad hominem attacks and personal insults are not constructive in any debate. That's why I am happy to report that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly et al are not engaging in that. If you would spend some time actually listening to their rationale instead of selected soundbites, you would know that.

For instance, it is neither ad hominem nor a personal insult to label one as a Marxist or as who promotes Marxist ideology when he or she admires Marxists, surrounds himself with people of Marxist convictions, writes comments that might have fit nicely into the Communist Manifesto, and unmistakably states Marxist concepts.

Any who think the person is mislabeled should be able to give specific reasons why the person is not a Marxist and/or harbors no Marxist ideology.

To simply state that it is hate speech to use the term not only will not hold up in 'court' but doesn't change the fact when the term is properly applied.

Ignorant people think Marx was hateful, the devil himself and to make such comparisons is calling a person hateful or the devil. Or ignorant people may see it as hate speech and inciting to violence.

Educated people will see it for what it is: informed acknowledgment of a way of thinking, a concept of governing, a method of achieving certain goals that can be of either evil motives or noble motives. Karl Marx himself was not an evil man; just one with really misguided and dangerous ideas.

Marx himself incited no one to violence, however. And ordinary Marxist rhetoric incites no one to violence. And pointing out that it is Marxism or Marxist concepts and being critical of Marxism or Marxist concepts incites no one to violence.

I strongly disagree with you that those who promote the Constitution and law while they tell the truth they believe, are those inciting to violence. They may sometimes get it wrong, but the conservatives on talk radio, television, or at Tea Parties are not not inciting anyone to violence.

Those who intend to incite violence, with whatever words or phrases they choose to do that, are the only ones inciting anyone to violence.

Those who call or write in threats to conservative talk show hosts or anybody in Congress or anybody else are inciting to violence. They are bottom feeders, the dregs of society, contemptible, and vile and despicable. And they should not be allowed to live and walk among us.

[BI think they should air their arguments and their monolog and leave the name calling and character assassination in the gutter where it belongs.[/B]

 

[Foxfyre]

You can incite violence without ever mentioning a violent act. The Nazis did it very effectively.

It's one thing to criticize the actions of government officials. It's something else to launch personal attacks, saying they hate America, claiming they are terrorist, and criticizing their religious belief. This is becoming all too common. We seem to feel that discrediting a person's work and ideas is not enough, we need to have the voters actually hate the person. We did this with George Bush and we are doing with Obama.

I agree that unfounded ad hominem attacks and personal insults are not constructive in any debate. That's why I am happy to report that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly et al are not engaging in that. If you would spend some time actually listening to their rationale instead of selected soundbites, you would know that.

For instance, it is neither ad hominem nor a personal insult to label one as a Marxist or as who promotes Marxist ideology when he or she admires Marxists, surrounds himself with people of Marxist convictions, writes comments that might have fit nicely into the Communist Manifesto, and unmistakably states Marxist concepts.

Any who think the person is mislabeled should be able to give specific reasons why the person is not a Marxist and/or harbors no Marxist ideology.

To simply state that it is hate speech to use the term not only will not hold up in 'court' but doesn't change the fact when the term is properly applied.

Ignorant people think Marx was hateful, the devil himself and to make such comparisons is calling a person hateful or the devil. Or ignorant people may see it as hate speech and inciting to violence.

Educated people will see it for what it is: informed acknowledgment of a way of thinking, a concept of governing, a method of achieving certain goals that can be of either evil motives or noble motives. Karl Marx himself was not an evil man; just one with really misguided and dangerous ideas.

Marx himself incited no one to violence, however. And ordinary Marxist rhetoric incites no one to violence. And pointing out that it is Marxism or Marxist concepts and being critical of Marxism or Marxist concepts incites no one to violence.

I strongly disagree with you that those who promote the Constitution and law while they tell the truth they believe, are those inciting to violence. They may sometimes get it wrong, but the conservatives on talk radio, television, or at Tea Parties are not not inciting anyone to violence.

Those who intend to incite violence, with whatever words or phrases they choose to do that, are the only ones inciting anyone to violence.

Those who call or write in threats to conservative talk show hosts or anybody in Congress or anybody else are inciting to violence. They are bottom feeders, the dregs of society, contemptible, and vile and despicable. And they should not be allowed to live and walk among us.

[BI think they should air their arguments and their monolog and leave the name calling and character assassination in the gutter where it belongs.[/B]

Perhaps it would be better if everybodyl did that though I have yet to see or hear any 'name calling' or character assassination on any of their shows.. But as long as there are people like you who call them all sorts of names because you disagree with them, the custom will continue I suppose.

I thought the President, though way too long winded tonight, did a pretty credible job and I mostly appreciated that he didn't mince words that political commentary and rhetoric had nothing whatsoever to do with the tragedy in Arizona and it is wrong for anybody to be saying that it did. Bravo for President Obama. (I did think the memorial was rather strange and even improper being more of a raucus pep rally than to remember the victims, but that wasn't the President's fault.)