Whose Fault Is It?

[boedicca]

The essence of what you are doing is advocating suppression of free speech because somebody somewhere might take offense.

It's intentions like yours which lead to the destruction of individual liberty.

The principle of individual liberty does not protect threatening or intimidating speech.

Actually, it does in the vast majority of cases. The Constitution does not give the government the power to make expressing ideas crimes. Most "threats" and "intimidations" are rhetorical and no rational person would take them at face value.

 

[Capitalist]

(CPUSA) — “. . . In no uncertain terms, the Communist Party USA strongly and unequivocally condemns this outrageous act of violence. We extend our condolences to the family and friends of the victims. We hope for full recoveries for all the wounded, including Rep. Giffords.
It is reported that law enforcement has in custody a 22-year-old white man, Jared Lee Loughner, as the accused shooter. It is not clear whether the shooter acted alone or with accomplices.
Many are dubbing this a tragedy, which undoubtedly it is. But it doesn’t end there.
While we do not yet know the motivation of the crime, many have surmised that the motivation is political because of the atmosphere of violent language and threats against Rep. Giffords and other Congressional Democrats. Political or not, the extreme right-wing tea party movement and their anti-government rantings and ravings helped create an atmosphere that allowed or even encouraged this attack. For instance, until the day of the event when it was removed, Sarah Palin featured Giffords on her webpage with the congresswoman’s district in the crosshairs of a gun, targeting her for her support of healthcare reform.
Continue reading »

(Big Government) — An extreme, left-wing Democrat group calling itself 21st Century Democrats has had the gall to send out an email blast using as a fundraising tool Saturday’s criminal shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona. Judge John Roll and four others were killed in the incident, one of them a 9-year-old girl, but these Democrats are ignorant enough to be using this incident to try and squeeze donations from its supporters. Some might think the action of 21st Century Democrats is itself a crime — a crime against decency.
The email blast sent out Sunday morning to its supporters tells members that “we don’t know yet” why Jared Loughner shot Gabrielle Giffords but goes on to lay the blame on Sarah Palin and Gifford’s opponent in the past election for using “violent imagery” in his campaign.
The email goes on to ask members to “join us in sharing your thoughts and prayers to the Congresswoman and her family by visiting our website where we have set up a page for you to do so.” Naturally once you click on the link you are taken to a page that prominently displays the group’s DONATE NOW button. It is not in the slightest way discreetly designed. As soon as you go to this so-called prayers page you see a large button asking for donations and another one underneath it urging visitors to “sign up” for email blasts and information.
Disgustingly, 21st Century Democrats is using this crime in a fundraising effort.
Gauche is hardly a strong enough word to describe this action.
​

 

[Madeline]

I think they have a point, Capitalist. I'd like to see ALL our public figures pledge to eliminate violent imagery from their speech.

Doesn't mean I wanna run off and join the circus, or the Communist Party.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The essence of what you are doing is advocating suppression of free speech because somebody somewhere might take offense.

It's intentions like yours which lead to the destruction of individual liberty.

The principle of individual liberty does not protect threatening or intimidating speech.

It doesn't? Since when?

 

[Madeline]

The essence of what you are doing is advocating suppression of free speech because somebody somewhere might take offense.

It's intentions like yours which lead to the destruction of individual liberty.

The principle of individual liberty does not protect threatening or intimidating speech.

It doesn't? Since when?

It does, with narrow exceptions. Anyways, I don't know if I agree I am advocating for a loss of free speech rights. It may be legal to advocate for cannablism, but I would never support a candidate who did so.

 

[Capitalist]

I think they have a point, Capitalist. I'd like to see ALL our public figures pledge to eliminate violent imagery from their speech.

Doesn't mean I wanna run off and join the circus, or the Communist Party.

Like this?

"I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. In this case the hostage is the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed," Obama on keeping taxes from increasing, December 6, 2010

"A Republican majority in Congress would mean "hand-to-hand combat" on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy," Obama, October 6, 2010​

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama in July 2008​

"Here's the problem: It's almost like they've got -- they've got a bomb strapped to them and they've got their hand on the trigger. You don't want them to blow up. But you've got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger." Obama on banks, March 2009​

"I want you to argue with them and get in their face!" Barack Obama, September 2008​

“We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” Obama to Latinos, October 2010​

“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” Obama on ACORN Mobs, March 2010​

“We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“ Obama on the private sector, June 2010​

 

[Madeline]

Yes. And Obama telling a Latino audience we need to "fight our enemies" in the GOP. And Pelosi telling a Latino audience that border patrol guards are not "real Americans". And Olbermann and that "Worst Person In The World" segment.

IMO, it does not matter where you land on the political spectrum...this sort of speech is unduly inflamatory and all of us should condemn the speaker.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The essence of what you are doing is advocating suppression of free speech because somebody somewhere might take offense.

It's intentions like yours which lead to the destruction of individual liberty.

The principle of individual liberty does not protect threatening or intimidating speech.

It doesn't? Since when?

Go tell a cop you are going to shoot him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The principle of individual liberty does not protect threatening or intimidating speech.

It doesn't? Since when?

Go tell a cop you are going to shoot him.

Why would I do that? I generally do not going around shooting cops, most of them do not deserve it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It doesn't? Since when?

Go tell a cop you are going to shoot him.

Why would I do that? I generally do not going around shooting cops, most of them do not deserve it.

Thank you for running scared. Your reaction supports my comment. Certain types of speech are not protected. Free speech is not absolute.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Go tell a cop you are going to shoot him.

Why would I do that? I generally do not going around shooting cops, most of them do not deserve it.

Thank you for running scared. Your reaction supports my comment. Certain types of speech are not protected. Free speech is not absolute.

Bud, if you think my reaction to your stupidity proves that you are right you are even more delusional than I thought.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The essence of what you are doing is advocating suppression of free speech because somebody somewhere might take offense.

It's intentions like yours which lead to the destruction of individual liberty.

The principle of individual liberty does not protect threatening or intimidating speech.

Actually, it does in the vast majority of cases. The Constitution does not give the government the power to make expressing ideas crimes. Most "threats" and "intimidations" are rhetorical and no rational person would take them at face value.

Nonsense, and you can't support your irrational claim. Go tell the policeman someone is going to kill "not to worry that is rhetorical."

Give up this nonsense. Free speech is not absolute, and never has been.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, QWB, you are delusional. Free speech is not absolute. Nothing you say changes that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, QWB, you are delusional. Free speech is not absolute. Nothing you say changes that.

Of course it is absolute, except when governments are involved. Being a statist I know you believe that government whatever trumps individual everything, but you are wrong.

 

[DiveCon]

Yes, QWB, you are delusional. Free speech is not absolute. Nothing you say changes that.

Of course it is absolute, except when governments are involved. Being a statist I know you believe that government whatever trumps individual everything, but you are wrong.

sorry, it is NOT absolute
you can NOT yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater and have no repercussions

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, QWB, you are delusional. Free speech is not absolute. Nothing you say changes that.

Of course it is absolute, except when governments are involved. Being a statist I know you believe that government whatever trumps individual everything, but you are wrong.

I am no more a statist than you are a libertarian. You go live without the Rule of Law and subject yourself to the Rule of Man. If that were the case, you would be one of the first four casualties in a population of a million.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, QWB, you are delusional. Free speech is not absolute. Nothing you say changes that.

Of course it is absolute, except when governments are involved. Being a statist I know you believe that government whatever trumps individual everything, but you are wrong.

sorry, it is NOT absolute
you can NOT yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater and have no repercussions

Read what I said.

Of course it is absolute, except when governments are involved.

What about what I said conflicts with anything you said?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, QWB, you are delusional. Free speech is not absolute. Nothing you say changes that.

Of course it is absolute, except when governments are involved. Being a statist I know you believe that government whatever trumps individual everything, but you are wrong.

I am no more a statist than you are a libertarian. You go live without the Rule of Law and subject yourself to the Rule of Man. If that were the case, you would be one of the first four casualties in a population of a million.

You obviously believe libertarian means anarchist, and I have no idea what you think statist means.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it is absolute, except when governments are involved. Being a statist I know you believe that government whatever trumps individual everything, but you are wrong.

I am no more a statist than you are a libertarian. You go live without the Rule of Law and subject yourself to the Rule of Man. If that were the case, you would be one of the first four casualties in a population of a million.

You obviously believe libertarian means anarchist, and I have no idea what you think statist means.

You don't understand libertarianism, have no idea what an anarchist is, and I know you don't know what statist means.

You would be a walking victim in the world of your delusion.

 

[American Horse]

Actually the shooter was a drug head, not a crazy so to speak.

I watched some of his U-Tube videos and to me they seemed to not show him to be in a logical nor sane frame of mind. He was very much off the deep end. Find a link and watch some; they're in yesterday's thread on the topic