quote:Washington radio station WMAL-AM fired talk show host Michael Graham yesterday after he refused to soften his description of Islam as "a terrorist organization" on the air last month.
Graham had been suspended without pay from his daily three-hour show since making his comments July 25. The station had conditioned his return to the midmorning shift on reading a station-approved statement in which Graham would have said that his anti-Muslim statements were "too broad" and that he sometimes uses "hyperbole" in the course of his program. WMAL also asked Graham to speak to the station's advertisers and its employees about the controversy.
But Graham refused both conditions, prompting the station to drop him.
According to WMAL, Graham said "Islam is a terrorist organization" 23 times on his July 25 program. On the same show, he also said repeatedly that "moderate Muslims are those who only want to kill Jews" and that "the problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam."
The comments drew complaints and prompted an organized letter-writing campaign against WMAL and its advertisers by a Muslim group, the Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR) of Washington. The protests led several advertisers to ask WMAL to stop airing their ads during Graham's weekday show, although the station says it didn't lose any advertisers amid the controversy.
In a statement yesterday, Graham blamed CAIR for his firing and defended his comments: "As a fan of talk radio, I find it absolutely outrageous that pressure from a special interest group like CAIR can result in the abandonment of free speech and open discourse on a talk radio show."
The reason we have free speech is to allow individuals to effect change. If free speech wasn't supposed to result in people taking action, we wouldn't need it. CAIR heard something it didn't like said on a commercial radio station. CAIR used it's free speech rights to make its displeasure known. The commercial entity responded accordingly.
Graham's firing isn't an example of an abandonment of free speech. It's an example of free speech in action.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Now if only we could weed out all the other granola bars on AM radio...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Incidentally, if Islam is a 'terrorist organization' and CAIR is a special-interest group working for Islam...shouldn't Graham be relieved that he's only been fired? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Rakeesh
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The thing is, Adam, WAML hasn't restricted Graham's speech. They've restricted his access to equipment he doesn't own to broadcast his voice.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I really don't mean to derail this thread, but this comment really gets to me:
quote:Now if only we could weed out all the other granola bars on AM radio...
I'm sure I'm taking this wrong, so before I go into why I disagree, I'll let you expand on it.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I feel bad about feeling this way... I truly do... but I can't help feeling that there is some truth to his statements. That those muslims who truly believe in peace are following a different version of Islam, and that the "real" Islam really does call for the extermination of unbelievers.
I don't want to feel this way. I know other people have felt that way about "all" the members of certain religions, races, nationalities, etc. I know I shouldn't feel that way. But I do. I feel like what this guy said makes some sense. I got a quote from a wnd article. (I actually saw this in wnd before I saw it here.)
He says: "If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization," he said. "If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder – and the scoutmasters in charge simply said 'Could be' – the Boy Scouts would have driven out of America long ago."
It's not like I think all muslims are hate-mongers and evil and killers. I just can't help thinking that the ones who aren't are overly optimistic about their religion or are adhering to the Americanized softer version.
Like I said.. I don't LIKE feeling this way. But I do. And I'm not sure what to do about it.
Does the Islamic "organization" have a responsibility to speak out against terrorism? To set the record straight, so to speak?
I dunno.. there have been offshoots of my own church that preach things that are way off from what we believe. I remember not wanting to be linked to the people in WACO because they were SDA offshoots.
I guess I see a big difference between the Islam in the middle east and the Islam in America. Aren't they trained to hate us over there as a general rule? Aren't young children trained to grow up to be suicide bombers?
Maybe my problem is lack of the "right" information. But I'm not sure how I'm supposed to get that.
-Katarain
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Since I doubt he would continue working if they didn't pay him, you could also say that they've declined to continue paying him to use that equipment and broadcast his voice and opinions. That's a far cry from denying his right to free speech. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by scottneb: I really don't mean to derail this thread, but this comment really gets to me:
quote:Now if only we could weed out all the other granola bars on AM radio...
I'm sure I'm taking this wrong, so before I go into why I disagree, I'll let you expand on it.
I didn't read anything into this except a pun on the name "Graham"? Was there more to it than that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:He says: "If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization," he said. "If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder – and the scoutmasters in charge simply said 'Could be' – the Boy Scouts would have driven out of America long ago."
The trick he uses here is with the numbers: there are 1.3 billion. To reach the 10 in 1,000 ratio, there would need to be 13 million suicide bombers.
Further, Islam doesn't have scoutmasters in charge, and many Islamic scholars have condemned attacks on civillians as always wrong.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Really? That makes me feel a little better...
Hey, are they American scholars or another nationality?
It's not like I would ever condone being hateful or even a little mean to an Islamic person. I would just wonder in the back of my mind... Does this person want to kill me? And if they don't personally, do they believe that it's okay if someone else does?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
When I was flying to Toronto the two people behind me were talking rather loudly about what a relief it was to be on a plane back to Canada. Because since guns are legal in the United States, everyone they saw they wondered if they were carrying a gun. And as they were walking down the street downtown, whenever someone was coming in the opposite direction they thought "That person could pull out a gun and shoot me."
I'm not exaggerating. They went into great detail about it, and about how they never felt safe while they were in America.
Just thought you might want to know, Katarain, that if the Islamic person is from another country they might be wondering the exact same thing about you. (And I'm not trying to be snarky, here. . . I think it's an interesting dicotamy.)
I, of course, was flabbergasted and thought they were being completely ridiculous. 'Cause people don't just pull out guns in the middle of downtown in America and start shooting people. Except, well. . . when they do.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: It's not like I would ever condone being hateful or even a little mean to an Islamic person. I would just wonder in the back of my mind... Does this person want to kill me? And if they don't personally, do they believe that it's okay if someone else does?
How remarkably curious. That is precisely the way I feel about Christians.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
kat, your feeling on the "real" Islam is similar to how I think atheists/agnostics feel about Christianity. There are Christians who are nice and peaceful, but the "real" Christianity is the one that would force the 10 Commandments everywhere, mandatory school-prayer, etc...
Christ did say, after all, that following him would pit brother against brother, daughter against mother.
The above was just devil's advocating.
-Bok
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Katarain,
Heh, unfortunatley it was no pun on the name, it was just a silly and apparently ineffective way of calling Graham nuts. Granola bars, nuts, that's all. My bad.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I dunno, being stabbed sounds worse to me than being shot. A gun shot will probably kill you depending on where you get hit.
But imagine a knife tearing through your stomache, you hitting the ground and slowly bleeding to death as your intestines spill out of you.
A gunshot can go for the instant kill. Head, Heart.. Knives by necessity have to go for your less defended parts.. Neck, Face, Gut...
Yes, I have an overactive imagination, but if I'm ever murdered violently (never thought I'd start a sentance like that) I'd prefer it be by Gun.
Pix
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
great timing, Bok! KoM illustrated your point.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
KoM: Christianity isn't as awful as you make it sound. Christianity has grown up a lot. Islam needs to do the same.
As to the original topic, the right to free speech isn't a right for someone else to provide you with a soap box.
Pix
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
ElJay, I get that, I do. But look at what KoM said. Do you see many Christian suicide bombers out there who belonged to groups that held the position that the Bible tells them to kill people? Is such a feeling presently justified? I assume he's referring to past acts, such as the crusades, not things going on right now.
What reason does an Islamic person have to think that about me? Because of the war? Doesn't a reasonable person see a difference between a war fought between soldiers and an attack on citizens by terrorists?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:He says: "If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization," he said. "If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder – and the scoutmasters in charge simply said 'Could be' – the Boy Scouts would have driven out of America long ago."
There are several major problems with this analogy.
1. There are ~ 1 billion Muslims in the world. A liberal estimate might place 100,000 of them as members of terrorist organizations. So Your to be quantitatively accurate you should have said if the BSA had 100,000 troups and 1 of them practiced suicide bombings.
2. Islam doesn't have a central organization. There is no Pope or living Prophet who guides Islam. Sunni's don't even have a clergy. So there is no one who has authority to kick people out of Islam.
3. The "hand book" of Islam, The Koran, doesn't justify terrorisim. Language in the Koran which some use to justify killing is no stronger than language found in the Bible which some have used to justify killing. In fact, it is probably weaker. (In the Bible the Israelites were commanded by God to kill every non-Israelite who inhabited Israel -- I know of know equivalent in the Koran.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:That those muslims who truly believe in peace are following a different version of Islam, and that the "real" Islam really does call for the extermination of unbelievers.
There was a time in history when you could have said precisely the same thing about Christianity.
The official state religion of the Ottoman Empire was Islam. But the Ottoman Empire in the medieval era had a far greater degree of freedom of religion than Christian Europe had. There were Christians and Jews in Ottoman lands that lived peacefully and practiced their religion openly. Muslims and Jews in Christian Europe, meanwhile, were being forced to convert, tortured, killed, or expelled.
Yet we know that such brutal behavior is not inherent in Christianity, because that behavior has been abolished, and Christianity still thrives.
I would argue that Islam is going through a similar period right now. Large portions of the Muslim world are under the direct control of extremists. The literalism and intolerance that plagued Christianity for centuries has taken deep root in the Muslim world. There is nothing inherently brutal about Islam. It's the way Islam is being used by power-hungry leaders that is brutal.
I am certain that one day--one would hope within our lifetime, but we'll see how it goes--Islam will move on, and then Muslims can live peacefully with Christians and Jews the way Christians and Jews now live peacefully with each other. Remember that even the latter situation would have been unthinkable until very recently.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [QUOTE]The trick he uses here is with the numbers: etc
Further, Islam doesn't have scoutmasters in charge, and many Islamic scholars have condemned attacks on civilians as always wrong.
Originally posted by Katarain:Hey, are they American scholars or another nationality?
Good catch on the numbers, Dag, I totally missed that.
I remember that American mullahs' issued a recent fatwa condemning civilian killing in general and al-Queada and bin Laden specifically.
Bear in mind that in some Islamic dominated countries, issuing a similar decree would be tantamount to signing your own death warrant, or your deportation papers. Extremists are not picky about who they murder, as shown by the many muslims killed by suicide attacks in Iraq.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: kat, your feeling on the "real" Islam is similar to how I think atheists/agnostics feel about Christianity. There are Christians who are nice and peaceful, but the "real" Christianity is the one that would force the 10 Commandments everywhere, mandatory school-prayer, etc...
Interesting that you should bring that up.
The SAME EXACT THING scares ME about most Christians. And I'm Christian. But I'm not mainstream Christian, and I am 100% in favor of separation of church and state. I don't believe in mandatory school-prayer, or teacher/administrator-led school prayer. And I don't believe in forcing the 10 commandments or any other Christian belief.
The stuff that comes out of the Christian Right is downright frightening.
I suppose the way I feel about the Christian Right can be compared to the way I feel about extremist Islam. Maybe the perception I have that Extremist Islam really is the "Real" Islam is the same as those people who think the Extremist Christian Right is really the "Real" Christianity.
Which, I guess, is exactly what you just said...
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I am listening to the leader of the Pakistan oppostion party right now claiming on BBC that 9/11 and the London bombings were a Zionist conspiracy and Osama Bin Laden was framed.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I don't think it's currently justified the way KoM put it, but I think it is without a doubt the way bok put it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The reason we have free speech is to allow individuals to effect change. If free speech wasn't supposed to result in people taking action, we wouldn't need it. CAIR heard something it didn't like said on a commercial radio station. CAIR used it's free speech rights to make its displeasure known. The commercial entity responded accordingly
No, the reason we have free speech is to exchange ideas, to get different viewpoints on things.
While the company certainly is completely within its rights as owner of the equipment and his employer to fire him, they have made it harder to talk about a certain viewpoint and have denied Graham an ability to air his views to a large audience, further curtailing the idea and its discussion.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Poppycock. The company was absolutely right to deny him the right to spread hatred in their name. No company is obligated, by the Constitution or any state law I am aware of, to tolerate bigotry from its employees.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Do you see many Christian suicide bombers.
Perhaps not suicide bombers, but there are Christian terrorist organizations. Most notably, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the Ulster Union. There are others with which you maybe less familiar.
On Oct 22, 2004 a group of Christian Terrorists set of three bombs in northeast India killing 44 and wounding 118. This group's terrorist activities were backed financially by Baptist church's in the US.
The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda is responsible for the rape and abduction of over 6000 children and are responsible for the maiming and murder of thousands of civilians. There founder calls himself their spiritual head and their goal is to establish a Ten Commandments based government.
The Christian Identity movement in the US justifies the use of violence if it is perpetrated in order to punish violators of God's law, as found in the Bible and interpreted by Christian Identity ministers and adherents. This includes killing interracial couples, abortionists, prostitutes and homosexuals, burning pornography stores, and robbing banks and perpetrating frauds to undermine the "usury system." To perpetrators of two prominent terrorist attacksm, the Oklahoma City Bombing and Atlanta Olympic bombing, were associated with this groups.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I didn't say the company was, Verily. I said the opposite, in fact.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It is not the company's responsibility to grant Graham the ability to air his views to a large audience. It is not the company's responsibility to air points of view it finds distasteful or unacceptable.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Katarain,
Heh, unfortunatley it was no pun on the name, it was just a silly and apparently ineffective way of calling Graham nuts. Granola bars, nuts, that's all. My bad.
That wasn't me. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
See my previous post. Property rights and free speech, edit: though definitely intertwined, are two different things. You can support one while still understanding that it impacts the other.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ack! Sorry, Katarain. Sorry. Reading and speaking to a dozen people atm. Reference that to scottneb Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"Do you see many Christian suicide bombers out there who belonged to groups that held the position that the Bible tells them to kill people? Is such a feeling presently justified? I assume he's referring to past acts, such as the crusades, not things going on right now."
Abortion clinic bombings and shootings come to mind, right off the top of my head.
Also, I was beat up for my lack of belief. That was more a case of schoolyard bullying, but kids like that grow up, after all.
The guy near Detroit that killed someone because he was an atheist.
Then there was the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones and his People's Temple. The suicide component is there.
Of course there have been numerous cases of parents (particularly mothers) killing their children who claimed they had done it for religious reasons.
Can't remember the details, but some politician recently suggested that bombing Mecca was an appropriate response to the current situation.
In fact, doesn't Bush claim some kind of divine guidance in his decision making? As I understand it, Chistian Fundamentalists are pretty staunchly in favor of the war for religious reasons.
Pat Robertson is calling for Hugo Chavez' assassination. I don't know that he's used religion as his reasoning, but it's hard to divorce him from his religious self.
White Supremecist groups use religious arguments. for their hatred.
And then there's Fred Phelps.
No, I'd definitely say that you don't have to go back to the Crusades or the Inquisition to find examples of Christians justifying violence with their religious belief. There are plenty of current examples.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The difference is that I living in the alleged stronghold of Christianitym "America" can still say openly, and I do, that I condemn the killing of people on the grounds of religious differences.
I can get on a television station and say that I find it sick and wrong when a christian blows up an abortion clinic. And that God hates the hypocrits who act in his name. I can walk up to a chapel and protest the remarks made by a minister during communion.
I can go door to door and ask people if I might share with them my own beliefs about God and Jesus, and the law cant touch me, people can say yes or no on their own door steps without being forced either way.
If I was killed by somebody because of my beliefs and remarks they would be tried in court just as surely as anybody else who commits murder.
NONE of these things can be done in ANY muslim nation. I lived in Malaysia for 4 years, and I have to say I LOVED living there, but even as a 3rd grader, when I heard my teacher say because he was marrying a muslim he was compelled to join Islam, thinking that there was something wrong with that situation.
It was Christian men who made the foundation of this country and they didnt do too shabby. I turn on the TV and they talk about a big barrier in Iraq's new constitution being "The government shall make no law contradicting Islam" does that sound remotely like "the government shall make no law respecting religion or the free enterprise thereof?"
How can you make any laws then let alone allow free speech. Muslims cant even agree what Islam says (I know Christians have the same problem, but we arnt the ones making christianity the measuring rod for all laws.) Islam is not an evil religion but it certainly does not empower its people with freedom of thought. If some cleric preaches hate you forfeit your life if you speak against them. If a nuclear bomb went off in mecca (read the shadow series for that WHAT IF) would americans be dancing in the street? If I saw one you can bet I would stop them by any means neccesary, but I am willing to bet you wouldnt see ONE dancer, at least not in my neighborhood and they are 80+% christian.
Christians may hate to hear their beliefs rediculed (and they are on a constant basis), some even act out of rage and kill the voices of those they fear the most. But at least we give those incidents the publicity they deserve and people hear about them in the news as a murder and not as Gods work.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, the reason we have free speech is to exchange ideas, to get different viewpoints on things.
And we wouldn't care about exchanging ideas and getting different viewpoints if doing so didn't cause change within the real world. You've stopped the chain of analysis short of the goal.
quote:While the company certainly is completely within its rights as owner of the equipment and his employer to fire him, they have made it harder to talk about a certain viewpoint and have denied Graham an ability to air his views to a large audience, further curtailing the idea and its discussion.
Because another idea was expressed.
Every other radio station (except the inevitable one who will pick this guy up in a few months) in the country is "den[ying] Graham an ability to air his views to a large audience."
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
All I want to know is if the ALCU would agree to represent him if he sued the radio station or if they only believe that liberal bigotry has a right to be expressed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What grounds are there for suit, NFL?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:All I want to know is if the ALCU would agree to represent him if he sued the radio station or if they only believe that liberal bigotry has a right to be expressed.
I'm sorry, but this statement is crap.
The ACLU represents people with just about every ideology under the sun when it believes their rights have been violated (even the KKK and the Neo-Nazi party). The key here is the last part, where an actual violation of someone's rights has been done. Only someone with a very limited understanding of free speach law would think this guy's rights have been violated in this instance. So of course the ACLU won't represent him.
If I call my boss a dirt-bag to his face, and after I am fired I try and get the ACLU to represent me, they will probably tell me the same thing they would tell this guy. That we don't have a case. Not that our ideologies don't match theirs.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, the reason we have free speech is to exchange ideas, to get different viewpoints on things. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And we wouldn't care about exchanging ideas and getting different viewpoints if doing so didn't cause change within the real world. You've stopped the chain of analysis short of the goal.
You definition actually lends more weight to the idea that his speech was curtailed than mine.
And you are confusing the action with consequences. If I speak to you and you physically do nothing because of what I said, then I am still engaging in 'free speech', regardless.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- While the company certainly is completely within its rights as owner of the equipment and his employer to fire him, they have made it harder to talk about a certain viewpoint and have denied Graham an ability to air his views to a large audience, further curtailing the idea and its discussion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because another idea was expressed.
Every other radio station (except the inevitable one who will pick this guy up in a few months) in the country is "den[ying] Graham an ability to air his views to a large audience."
So what? Just because everyone else is doing it, or might do it, doesn't mean that the company isn't curtailing his ability to get his message out now.
As an aside, though, I am actually suprised the company took this kind of stand and fired him for saying that Islam was a terrorst organization. Lots of other talk-show hosts, while they haven't said that exactly, have derided Islam as a religion of peace.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You definition actually lends more weight to the idea that his speech was curtailed than mine.
And you are confusing the action with consequences. If I speak to you and you physically do nothing because of what I said, then I am still engaging in 'free speech', regardless.
I didn't say that wouldn't be free speech. But if no speech ever led to consequences, we wouldn't care enough to make it the most protected right in the Constitution.
It's not the defining attribute of free speech; it's just why we happen to care about it.
quote:So what? Just because everyone else is doing it, or might do it, doesn't mean that the company isn't curtailing his ability to get his message out now.
They're not curtailing it. They are no longer subsidizing it. Unless you're defining every decision not to subsidize it as a curtailment, they're not stopping his free speech.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
If the ability to talk to people or effect change is free speech, then a diminishment of that ability is a diminishment, or curtailment, of speech.
This guy used to be able to speak to thousands of people using the company's platform. Now he can't. His speech has been curtailed.
Does the company have to subsidize him? No.
Are they curtailing his ability to talk to people? Yes.
Your reasoning that
quote: Graham's firing isn't an example of an abandonment of free speech. It's an example of free speech in action.
while true in the second part, is false in the first, for the reasons that I have given.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: The key here is the last part, where an actual violation of someone's rights has been done.
The ALCU seems perfectly willing to represent liberals regardless of whether there was a genuine violation of their rights.
quote: What grounds are there for suit, NFL?
Do you honestly believe lacking legitmate grounds for a law suit tends to stop people who are determined to bring their case to court? I'm not saying the cases won't even get thrown out before they reach a jury, but that doesn't stop a lot of idiots from trying or overzealous groups like the ACLU from representing them or at least giving out press releases and filing briefs supporting them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Storm: Speech != Free Speech
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:
quote: Graham's firing isn't an example of an abandonment of free speech. It's an example of free speech in action.
while true in the second part, is false in the first, for the reasons that I have given.
It is absolutely true in the first part. You seem to be arguing that freedom is a ratchet - once someone decides to subsidize an exercise of a person's rights, then discontinuing such subsidy is a curtailment of the right.
Note that by this reasoning:
quote:This guy used to be able to speak to thousands of people using the company's platform. Now he can't. His speech has been curtailed.
the station's actions would be anti-free speech even if the reason for firing him was unrelated to content. Such a definition is almost impossible to sustain in practice.
As fugu so succinctly put it, his speech is being curtailed, not his freedom to speak.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I used to live in GA. Some anti-abortion group hired a billboard to say abortion is wrong. The owner of the billboard got a call threatening lawsuit if he didn't take down the message.
Anyone care to guess what side the ACLU took?
Now I'm in VA. We have styles of license plate; you can get your style added if you like (I don't know if it's signatures on a petition, or if you have to give the state money). Some of the more popular ones I see: Support Wildlife; Kids First; various colleges.
An anti-abortion group decided to make a "Choose Life" style. There was a lawsuit to stop them. Any guesses on the ACLU's position?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not without a lot more information about the billboard's ownership, the contents of the ad, etc.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: You seem to be arguing that freedom is a ratchet - once someone decides to subsidize an exercise of a person's rights, then discontinuing such subsidy is a curtailment of the right.
It's a curtailment of the ability to meaningfully engage in that right. More importantly, in this case, it's a curtailment of the ability of an idea to be aired and acted up, which you haven't argued against. I've never once said that he can't engage in any speech at all, as that would be stupid. This should be implicit in the word 'curtailment'.
Let's keep in mind the facts. You speak of the company not subsidizing this gentleman's speech as if it had come to this conclusion on its own, as if it had determined on its own that his idea didn't have merit. But why was this gentleman fired? Because he was espousing a certain idea that a group didn't like. That group, CAIRN, virtually *forced* this gentleman's employers, intimidated them!, to fire him because they didn't want that idea discussed on the air. If it were the state who had done what CAIRN did, I doubt we would be having this conversation. If the state told the radio station 'fire him, or else', would there be any question that this was a denial of this gentleman's speech? Why is one an illegimitate use of power and not the other? It seems to me that the circumstances where the free airing and exchange of ideas are useful and good are the same and should be deemed a good whatever the case.
Just because this is a NGO doing the dirty work doesn't mean that it's not still wrong for the same reasons that it would be wrong if the government was doing it--an idea is being removed from view because it is considered too dangerous too exist. People aren't being allowed to decide for themselves whether that idea has merit or not.
quote:
Note that by this reasoning:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This guy used to be able to speak to thousands of people using the company's platform. Now he can't. His speech has been curtailed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the station's actions would be anti-free speech even if the reason for firing him was unrelated to content. Such a definition is almost impossible to sustain in practice.
If the station fired this guy for consistently not showing up to work or something like that, the station could still rehire someone who would say the same things as that gentleman. They can't do that now or they risk being punished by CAIR. In this specific case it's not just the ability of this gentleman to air his views, but the ideal of a free discussion of ideas that is being hurt.
Does CAIR have the right to boycott or sue or whatever to shut this idea down? Sure. I guess.
Is it wrong? Should they do it? I don't think so. I think a much better solution to this whole problem would have been for the station to give CAIR the chance to rebutt the things this guy has been saying. I bet ratings would have been great. Ideas would have been exchanged, but CAIR doesn't want the free exchange of ideas, it wants this idea dead and it has accomplished the ability of that idea to be aired on at least one radio station through force.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What force?
Edit: Gak! I hit post too soon.
What force? This was speech. One of the many reasons we put primacy on free speech is that people who can be heard are less likely to resort to force.
That's why this is a prime example of speech. A disagreement existed. It was solved by one side making its case better than the other. Without violence. Without force.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The comments drew complaints and prompted an organized letter-writing campaign against WMAL and its advertisers by a Muslim group, the Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR) of Washington. The protests led several advertisers to ask WMAL to stop airing their ads during Graham's weekday show
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: That's why this is a prime example of speech. A disagreement existed. It was solved by one side making its case better than the other. Without violence. Without force.
Come on, man. CAIR didn't rebutt this guy's ideas. They threatened the advertisers with boycotts and whatnot and worked through them to shut this guy down.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes. They said, "These ideas are so offensive that we will not support those who support them."
It says a lot about his ideas.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I hate how CNN and Fox curtail my ability to engage on speech about the intelligent space bunnies.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Billboard said, ABORTION IS MURDER. The owner was an individual.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then I would think the ACLU supported the free speech rights of the individual. I'd like a cite to look up the facts.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
"An anti-abortion group decided to make a "Choose Life" style. There was a lawsuit to stop them. Any guesses on the ACLU's position?"
I love the argument: They represent pro-choice groups and liberal causes so they are unfair in their practice or whatever. You see this kind of thing all the time, especially when you see court rulings on the ten commandments. Well, the court ruled against what i believe so they must have a liberal bias. Even better is the liberal media argument, well they dont show Bush in a good light so they must be biased. The notion that someone is biased simply because they disagree with you is one that I simply cannot endorse. Sure, there is bias out there but to simply say that someone is biased because they put out an arugment you disagree with is at best skirting the issue, and at worse being wrong and knowing it. In the case of the ACLU, maybe the liberals in those cases actually DID have their rights violated and maybe in the case of the courts, the conservative argument was really not constitutional and thats why the court ruled the way it did. In the end, it sounds like the only ones biased here are the people who use this as the excuse to disregard arguments put out.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hmmm. I didn't see where Will B said anything about their practice being unfair.
Seems to me you read his description of the cases as indicating bias all on your own.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Actually there were two cases presented in which there was one example of a conservative being the individual and one example of a liberal being the individual. In both cases the ACLU came out on the side on the liberals. In other words as opposed to supposedly being in favor of protecting individual rights the ACLU is really just interested in liberal causes.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
"Actually there were two cases presented in which there was one example of a conservative being the individual and one example of a liberal being the individual. In both cases the ACLU came out on the side on the liberals. In other words as opposed to supposedly being in favor of protecting individual rights the ACLU is really just interested in liberal causes."
Thats what I was talking about, Dag. I inferred that Bill was talking about and defending NFL. As a counter-point to that i argument, I will argue that it doesnt mean they were biased, it could mean that the liberals were the ones who had a case. Simply because the liberal pov was taken as the correct one doesnt mean they are biased against conservatives. It means that in this case, the liberals had a case and the conservative did not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So explain that billboard thing (if it's true - I won't comment on that until I see a cite), then?
I've had the ACLU speak out against my free speech rights before, and we definitely had a case.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
SO, let me get this straight...
I was OK for this idiot to spew this crap out over the airwaves, but not OK for the protesters to orginize a group and speak out agianst him?
Or perhaps it is that you didn't like the way they acted/and or spoke against him and his views?
quote:If it were the state who had done what CAIRN did, I doubt we would be having this conversation.
True, if the state had done this it would be a lot more problematic...
But it wasn't the state, it was a group of citizans who acted and used their own equally protected right of free speach to oppose him, however they chose to do it.
Equal protection under law, right? Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
An employer should always be able to restrict speech within its place business, especially when that speech is offensive and is hurtful to the running of that business either by turning away customers or by disrupting the work environment. A while ago there was a thread about a woman who was fired for repeatedly eating pork at a company with a large Muslim employ and clientele. In both cases the employee in question's rights to speech or religion are trumped by the employer's right to maintain a workplace that is conducive to business.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I can't give a citation for the billboard case. It happened before there was an Internet (around 1990), and the local paper, the Macon Telegraph and News, wouldn't have such old articles on its site.
"So explain that billboard thing (if it's true - I won't comment on that until I see a cite), then?"
Let me ask you this, is Bill or NFL arguing that the ACLU was wrong because they chose the wrong side or are they saying that the ACLU is wrong because they only take up liberal causes? implicitly, they are making the latter argument and thats the one I argue against. For one, lets assume that the ACLU is biased or a liberal organization, does that make them incorrect? Of course, not. As someone on this board said, you could be the most biased person in the world for your pov, but I am not going to worry about that. What im going to worry about is the argument they present. I dont care why people do what they do, i care about the arguments they present. If I can debunk that argument then I will not believe them, if I can then I will. Thats the point of what I was saying. For two, lets assume that the ACLU isnt biased. If thats the case, then they would take the case that reprsented a violation of someone's first amendment rights. If you want to argue against that, then you have to take on the argument itself, and one of those premises cannot be that they are wrong because they are biased. No matter which scenario you see as right, you should still argue against the argument itself. Think of it this way: Pat Robertson said that we should assassinate the president of Venezuela. To me, he is not wrong because he is on the right, nor because he is biased towards a conservative pov. IF he is wrong, it is because of the argument he presents, not who he is allied with.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Blackblade -
quote: If I was killed by somebody because of my beliefs and remarks they would be tried in court just as surely as anybody else who commits murder.
NONE of these things can be done in ANY muslim nation.
I'm almost positive that isn't even close to true. I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to bet quite a bit that if a Muslim in Iraq, even under Saddam, had killed a Chaldean, he himself would have been put to death. Justice over there isn't always fair (more often than not, it probably isn't), but it can be far swifter than our own.
I don't think there are specific clauses in the justice systems over there that exonerate murderers because their victims were Christians. Murder is still murder over there in many cases.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I'm saying the ACLU is wrong because they are hypocrites. They claim to defend civil liberties, but the only civil liberties they seem to actually care about are the civil liberties of liberals. If they would agree to defend the radio host discussed in this thread they would be wrong in the sense that the radio was within their rights, but at least they wouldn't be hypocrites.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And yet, strangely enough, the ACLU has defended the rights of KKK members to hold marches and the like. Or do you consider the KKK liberals?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think those statments show more of YOUR bias against them than any bias of theirs, nfl.
Not that I agree with the ACLU all of the time, a lot of the time I disagree with them. . . but it is important to hear their views, particularily when they are defending someone I hate or disagree strongly with.
They have defended plenty of idots on BOTH sides, IMO.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
"I'm saying the ACLU is wrong because they are hypocrites"
In and of itself, If the ACLU are hypocrites then that makes them wrong on THAT but that only. Being a hypocrite does NOT negate your other arguments. Arguments stand alone no matter who they come from. Your bias is what blindes you to that fact. To simply say that the ACLU is wrong on all accounts simply because you see them as hypocrites, only shows a narrowmindness not conducive to your own arguments. While what you say about the ACLU and its hypocricy may be correct, your other arguments suffer from this. To argue whether the ACLU is wrong about, say, the billboard case you are going to need more than "they are hypocrites so they must be wrong". And thats what I will always argue against, that type of argument.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: Arguments stand alone no matter who they come from
I don't really agree with this, at least not completely. Sometimes being aware of someone elses bias can help shape your arguments against their points, as it make it easier to see if they have a hidden agenda.
I understand what you aare saying, but sometimes the source DOES matter... Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
This issue could be more complicated than you are making it out to be, Dagonee. The question is: WHY is the radio station preventing this person from speaking his opinion. If it is because they disagree or don't like his opinion, then I agree that it is not a free speech issue. However, it is also possible that society in general is placing pressure on the radio station to restrict this speech. If the radio station is simply afraid of a social backlash against any station that carries certain opinions then the free expression of those opinions IS being curtailed, because society would be punishing the expression of those views.
To expect otherwise, however, might be a degree of freedom that we can't ever reach. It is natural for people to want to reject media that presents views they consider terribly wrong, and the Constitution certainly says nothing about society's collective ability to curtail free speech. It simply says the government can't do it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I don't really agree with this, at least not completely. Sometimes being aware of someone elses bias can help shape your arguments against their points, as it make it easier to see if they have a hidden agenda.
This is not really good form in arguing against someone, though. If you can't reject an argument on it's own, you can't reject it at all - you certainly can't say it must be wrong because the source arguing it is biased. That's a fallacy. Biased sources are actually often correct.
Moreso, once you do that you have ceased arguing a point, and instead are just essentially attacking the person you are arguing against. You are calling them wrong, without giving them a reason, other than that they are simply inherently wrong. That person is never going to be convinced by such a line of reasoning; instead they are going to be only offended.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
"Sometimes being aware of someone elses bias can help shape your arguments against their points, as it make it easier to see if they have a hidden agenda."
I think the source does matter when it comes to actually accepting what someone says on face value. For instance, when someone does not have a bias one should be more willing to accept what they say on face value. But when you decide to either accept or not accept what someone says on face value, you inherently start to look for the validity of what they said. Of course, at this point it shouldnt matter who gave you the argument, the argument stands alone to be critiqued. I dont think any premise can be shot down with "well i got it from a bad place". Of course, a hidden agenda does and can show you where a person got something but I dont think it can show the invalidity of the argument they present.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
Or what Tres said too. Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I never argued that the ACLU was wrong on the abortion billboard, I believe they are, but that's a seperate issue for a seperate thread. I was simply attacking the ACLU for being hypocrites and the billboard/liscence plate thing was brought up afterward by someone else to back me up.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Not all Muslims hold the same beliefs, and to equate one group of Muslims who want to kill their oponents with all Muslims everywhere does a disservice to the vast majority of Muslims who just want to live in peace and mind their own business.
quote:even as a 3rd grader, when I heard my teacher say because he was marrying a muslim he was compelled to join Islam
I married a Muslim, and that was not required of me. My husband's sister, also Muslim, married a Christian, and he was not required to convert. I know former Muslims from Malaysia as well as Sri Lanka who converted to Christian religions, and they were not killed, nor were their lives threatened in any way. The bishop in the last ward I was in in Canada served a mission in Malaysia, and those who converted were under no threats of violence. He also knew of many interreligious marriages with none of the participants required to convert when one of them was Muslim.
While there may have been pressure on the teacher to convert, I would not call it a universal requirement.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Just to make sure we're on the same page: in both the cases I presented (billboard, and license-plate), the ACLU was active, and their stance was to oppose free speech.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Some ideas are so stupid and offensive that the people they malign are, in my opinion, under no obligation-moral or otherwise-to rebutt them in a polite, civilized fashion but just to shut them up as quickly as possible.
For instance, if someone started throwing out racial slurs consistently on a radio program, I suppose the NAACP should go on the air and have discourse with the jackass?
Of course not.
The difference is that it wasn't the State who did what CAIRN did. By definition that means it isn't wrong as far as free speech legality is concerned. Now that that's out of the way...
First of all, if they'd done what you suggest, this host wouldn't have given them a fair debate. It's been amply displayed here the kind of rhetoric and tactics he engages in-inflammatory bigotry and outright deceptive statistics being two such methods. CAIR has to pick its own battles, those it's most likely to win. Getting the jackass shut down so more people aren't fooled by his idiocy is a service to the community.
By the way, he's not a 'gentlemen'. I don't know why you insist on calling him that. CAIR did not use force to stop him from espousing his bigotry. I cannot speak for CAIR, but I'll bet they want a free exchange of ideas that doesn't include racism, bigotry, and lies.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: This is not really good form in arguing against someone, though. If you can't reject an argument on it's own, you can't reject it at all - you certainly can't say it must be wrong because the source arguing it is biased. That's a fallacy. Biased sources are actually often correct.
I agree with this, to a point. I DON'T agree that sources that are heavily biased are usually right about much of anything, although that can (not always do) offer another side to an argument.
I was speaking of conversation where they are trying to hide their agenda, which is often the case with biased sources. If you are aware of their bias, and you feel that it is causing their points to be heavily skewed, it can be useful to point out that bias and argue against it. At times is is almost impossible to distinguish the bias fro the argument, and that is where things get a bit troublesome.
My main point is that while you still have to argue against their points, being aware of their bias, providing it is a heavy one, gives you more options for refuting them, both by pointing out their bias and by giving you a good idea where to look for flaws within their arguments.
Kwea
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I know the discussion has moved beyond this, but I can't let this go without addressing it.
quote:Abortion clinic bombings and shootings come to mind, right off the top of my head.
Please point out the most recent one of these that wasn't immediately decried by most Christian leaders in the United States. In fact, most of the major pro-life organizations have adopted statements that denounce violence against abortionists.
quote:Position Statement on Violence Against Abortionists April 19, 2005
A Focus on the Family Position Statement
Focus on the Family holds as one of its five guiding principles the sanctity of human life. In light of this, we ardently and actively oppose the killing of preborn children by abortion. We see abortion as a blight on our society and the scourge of our age.
However, in holding to the sanctity of human life, we join other major pro-life organizations, National Right to Life, Americans United for Life, American Life League and Operation Rescue in denouncing any effort to take the life of another human being who has not been found guilty of a capital offense in a legal trial. The Scriptures are clear that the state alone is ordained by God to "bear the sword" and "execute wrath on the wrongdoer."
With our participatory form of government, it is the responsibility of the citizen (Christian or otherwise) to work for the passage of good laws that protect human life: born and preborn. The proper way to do this is to adopt an ethic of active non-violence. We encourage and applaud this type of exercise as consistent with a responsible and dynamic Christianity. Conversely, to take the life of another individual in the name of "righteousness," no matter how just the cause, is against the law of God and questions His sovereignty. This holds equally true for those who would take the life of an abortionist or a preborn child.
There are people like Eric Robert Rudolph for example, that go against this position and believe violence is justified against abortionists. They are, however, considered extreme and denounced by the organizations they claim to support.
I'm not going to say whether or not Rudolph is a Christian, because honestly, it's neither my place nor within my power to know the relationship of any one person with God. I do know that God tells me you will know them by their fruits, and Rudolph's fruits don't give me very much confidence that he is in fact a Christian. But I think it is fair to say that no major Christian organization believes what Rudolph did is right or Biblical.
I am encouraged when I hear Muslims denouncing terrorism committed in the name of Islam. But I have to admit I don't see the parallel that others do between Islam and Christianity when it comes to advocating or at least not speaking out against terrorism. Because I believe that modern Christianity does not support suicide bombers or the indiscriminate taking of innocent life in order to advance a cause. And I believe that Christian leadership is very clear on its positions about that type of act - look at the statements by pro-life organizations and statements by the major denominations, etc that condemn those types of actions.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
So many threads in this thread, so little space to write.
Free Speech: You have the right to talk. You do not have the right to force anyone to listen.
Change to topic that this guy is using and see if your arguments still stand. If I want to say "Strawberries are alien life forms" does that mean that every radio station, tv station, newspaper and web-site is obligated to let me say it? No.
ACLU: was there a reason the letters were mixed up in an earlier post? Does ALCU represent a joke I am unaware of, or just a typo.
To claim that ACLU is a liberal-only organization is wrong. While most of their people tend to the liberal side of the spectrum, they are a Pro-Rights organization trying to defend the rights of individuals and minorities from those with more power. Those with more power are usually organized religions, the government, and business interests, which tend to be more conservative. Its more of a little man/big man divide.
Hence the Doctor, a single person, is being called a murderer by a large organization--the Pro-Life group, they defend the doctor. This is a big generalization, not a law for every case.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Actually, the ACLU is sometimes an anti-rights organization, trying to restrict the rights of individuals and minorities from those with more power. I just gave a couple of cases. There are others.
It's interesting, though, the argument that when they attack an individual billboard owner on behalf of the abortion industry, they're really defending the individual, since there are individuals involved in the abortion industry -- and the billboard owner was cooperating with a group! This argument can be used in any dispute, to take either side.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: This issue could be more complicated than you are making it out to be, Dagonee. The question is: WHY is the radio station preventing this person from speaking his opinion. If it is because they disagree or don't like his opinion, then I agree that it is not a free speech issue. However, it is also possible that society in general is placing pressure on the radio station to restrict this speech. If the radio station is simply afraid of a social backlash against any station that carries certain opinions then the free expression of those opinions IS being curtailed, because society would be punishing the expression of those views.
The radio station is a business. They are in the business of putting out audible signals that people want to listen to in order to get those people to listen commercials. The sponsor are willing to pay for those commercials because they believe doing so will cause people to buy their products.
The radio station is not a forum for people to express their views. It is a business that involves certain paid employees expressing their views. The reason they fired this guy was because people took the time and effort to make it clear that sponsor of the show would be achieving the opposite of their intended results with this particular market segment.
quote:To expect otherwise, however, might be a degree of freedom that we can't ever reach. It is natural for people to want to reject media that presents views they consider terribly wrong, and the Constitution certainly says nothing about society's collective ability to curtail free speech. It simply says the government can't do it.
It’s not only natural, it’s right. I assume you don’t want to ban speech such as that expressed by CAIR in this situation.
You would prefer that speech advocating businesses take a particular decision about the content of their radio shows not be listened to. CAIR prefers that misleading statements about Islam not be listened to.
That’s the beauty of free speech.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:NONE of these things can be done in ANY muslim nation.
This is simply untrue. People in Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey have can and do do most of things you list.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:NONE of these things can be done in ANY muslim nation.
This is simply untrue. People in Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey have can and do do most of things you list.
No they cannot. The only point that I might concede is that if you murdered somebody who was not muslim in say malaysia, you might go to jail if you say that you were simply following your religious beliefs.
As for Indonesia, have you not heard of all the christian chapels and ministers that were murdered only 2 years ago by muslim mobs. One minister had their car set on fire while they were in it, and every time he or his 2 sons tried to leave the car they were forced back inside until they burned to death. As far as anyone knows, nobody was ever prosecuted.
And NO you cannot go out publicly and say that anything against islam in ANY of those countries. You might say something to your friend in private but you certainly cant say that on television or even in public. Missionaries from ANY religion other than Islam CANNOT proselyte in any Muslim nation.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
So then any TV show or Radio show promoting Gay Marriage or Gay ideals can be cancelled, without reprecussion, if it doesn't "meld" with the views held by the proprietors.
I agree.
And as WillB stated about license plates, there was a similar case in Utah where the activist mother of a Homosexual wanted her License Plate to read "GaysRok" and the ACLU took up her cause to have it allowed. But I know someone who in response called the same Division and wanted one that said "NoGays" and they told him no because it was offensive.
I KNOW "GayRoks" is offensive to more people where I live (I could care less) than "NoGays" but the one was accepted and the other rejected, and also the ACLU wouldn't return the person's phone call requesting intervention.
In the case of the Radio Announcer, He was exercising his free speech as well as the CAIR organization. The radio affiliate did in FACT restrict his free speech whether warranted or not. I expect the ACLU to defend him but should I not hold my breath?
Anyone know of the NJ case where a man was fired from his office job for using the "F" word (which offended his co-workers) and then sued his company for dismissing him without cause?
Anyone know who took up his banner of "free speech"? Anyone know the result?
What about Howard Stern? Would there be anything wrong with firing him based on pretty much any show he does? Yes or No?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: Anyone know of the NJ case where a man was fired from his office job for using the "F" word (which offended his co-workers) and then sued his company for dismissing him without cause?
No, but I'm curious about this one because of some of my own work experiences. Call centers almost always have a no swearing policy in place because there's often somebody right next to you on the phone with a customer who might overhear it. Otherwise, if his computer crashed and he let slip an "Oh F!" I don't think he should have been fired (though maybe told to be more careful about it) but if he told a co-worker "Go F yourself" that would be a different story.
With the radio talk show host getting fired, he's not just talking to co-workers though, he's essentially talking to customers. If I work in a call center and end my calls with "Our products suck" I'm going to get fired. But when I'm on my own time I'm free to tell my friends "The company I work for, their products suck."
Oh, and I'm pretty sure what keeps Stern on the air is that his particular filth is still getting good ratings. To the station it's more about money than free speech. Of course, I don't know if this other guy was getting good ratings or not.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There is no set of 'gay ideals'.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The radio affiliate did in FACT restrict his free speech whether warranted or not. I expect the ACLU to defend him but should I not hold my breath?
Why do you expect this? What right do you think was violated that is enforceable in court?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Why do you expect this? What right do you think was violated that is enforceable in court?
Because I don't doubt they would jump to defend someone else who was fired in the same way for promoting Gay Marriage on the radio. Maybe you doubt that they would.
And being that it was a "talk show" that unless I am mistaken is probably alot of "opinions" every day, they are firing him for not holding opinions that they adhere to, or at least for not keeping his opinions to himself.
I'll ask another question. If a Gay Teacher who teaches Mathmatics voices their Pro-Gay Marriage opinions to their students. Should that teacher be fired? Has a teacher been fired? If so, did anyone stand up and sue that he/she was fired without cause or that they were unjustly censoring his/her free speech.
Google it before answering and justify if you would please why one is justice and the other one is injustice.
Gracias.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Because I don't doubt they would jump to defend someone else who was fired in the same way for promoting Gay Marriage on the radio. Maybe you doubt that they would.
If that person was a talk show host, then I'm almost positive they wouldn't.
quote:Google it before answering and justify if you would please why one is justice and the other one is injustice.
If you want to talk about a specific case, then google it yourself.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Missionaries from ANY religion other than Islam CANNOT proselyte in any Muslim nation.
We have LDS missionaries in both Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan (I should not forget Pakistan!). Sri Lanka is in the same mission - the Singapore mission - and missionaries serving here have also served in those countries, and vice versa. And as I mentioned before, my old bishop also served his mission in the region and he taught many Muslims.
The church has congregations holding church services every week in those countries, as well as in Dubai, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm kind of frustrated with this thread in that I either can't articulate my position well enough so that people understand what I am saying, or people are just not bothering to read what I'm saying carefully, or what. There are a couple people in this thread who have totally misconstrued what I am saying.
Fugu seems to be implying in a kind of snide, snarky way that I am advocating that the radio station or any other broadcast medium have to carry any dingbat message. I am not.
quote: SO, let me get this straight...
I was OK for this idiot to spew this crap out over the airwaves, but not OK for the protesters to orginize a group and speak out agianst him?
This statement is also very silly as nothing that I said indicates that I think this.
quote: Or perhaps it is that you didn't like the way they acted/and or spoke against him and his views?
This is actually closer to what I have been saying.
To make it short and understandable: It is, in my opinion, appropriate to meet speech with speech, to combat ideas with other ideas. Doing so is beneficial to both society and the individual, it gets back to the reason why I believe we have 'free speech'--the exchange of ideas. Yes, we care about the actions those ideas engender, but in order to choose the best course of action both as a society and individuals, we need to have access to as many points of view as possible.
For the reasons given above, it is inappropriate to meet speech with action that is geared solely to remove a person's point of view from public consumption. Furthermore, condoning such action opens the door to all kinds of abuse. Don't like what someone is saying? You can shut them down by threatening an advertiser or backer of that idea with a boycott or lawsuit or whatever.
Consider what would happen to private schools that depend on outside investment. What if in Kansas City, a teacher started discussing evolution and was fired because the school's backers were threatened with boycott or lawsuits? Does this sound defensible to you guys?
Think about what you're supporting.
Saying that a boycott somehow a priori has something to say about the idea, as Dagonee suggested, is the silliest thing I've ever heard him say. That CAIR was going to boycott the advertisers says nothing about that idea other than that CAIR found it offensive. It doesn't say anything about the facts or the logic of what that guy was saying. There are any number of groups that would be happy to boycott those who believe that gay marriage is wrong, and I'm sure you don't believe that makes the idea itself wrong.
quote: Some ideas are so stupid and offensive that the people they malign are, in my opinion, under no obligation-moral or otherwise-to rebutt them in a polite, civilized fashion but just to shut them up as quickly as possible.
For instance, if someone started throwing out racial slurs consistently on a radio program, I suppose the NAACP should go on the air and have discourse with the jackass?
Of course not.
Sigh. Of course they should, Rakeesh.
Some ideas are so stupid and offensive that they should not be allowed to be discussed? You have hit upon the belief that is the real rationale for all you people defending CAIR, I think.
The more stupid and offensive an idea is, the MORE it needs to be discussed. Stupid ideas die quick, horrible deaths when subjected to logic and reason in open debate. It is only through not discussing ideas that they are allowed to perpetuate and grow.
And the fact that an idea is offensive makes it something that should not be discussed? That's crazy talk, man! Just because one person thinks an idea is offensive doesn't mean the idea shouldn't be discussed. I am a bit flabbergasted that you would suggest such a thing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, I'm indicating that it can be a reduction in speech without being a reduction in free speech.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Consider what would happen to private schools that depend on outside investment. What if in Kansas City, a teacher started discussing evolution and was fired because the school's backers were threatened with boycott or lawsuits? Does this sound defensible to you guys?
How on earth can you complain about being misconstrued and say this in the same post?
What lawsuit? A lawsuit to stop speech does rely on force: government's coercive power to enforce judgments. It's antithetical to EVERYTHING I've been talking about.
As for boycott, it's a private school. If parents pull their children out because the school teaches evolution, I'd think it a mistake, but I would also acknowledge that they are exercising their rights.
quote:Saying that a boycott somehow a priori has something to say about the idea, as Dagonee suggested, is the silliest thing I've ever heard him say. That CAIR was going to boycott the advertisers says nothing about that idea other than that CAIR found it offensive.
Which is exactly what I said: "They said, 'These ideas are so offensive that we will not support those who support them.'"
quote:It doesn't say anything about the facts or the logic of what that guy was saying. There are any number of groups that would be happy to boycott those who believe that gay marriage is wrong, and I'm sure you don't believe that makes the idea itself wrong.
But such a boycott would be an important part of the national conversation on gay marriage, as would the inevitable counter-boycotts.
When you start attacking expressive actions based on their results, you've abandoned the notion of free speech. CAIR had every right to threaten a boycott. You want it to be unacceptable (I'm not saying you want to ban it) for groups like CAIR to do what they did. You are, in essence, declaring a whole section of speech, boycott advocacy, to be inappropriate and wish to see such speech banished from the public discourse.
Why? Because boycott advocacy declares a whole section of speech to be inappropriate and expresses the wish to see such speech banished from the public discourse.
The whole reason I favor civil gay marriage rights, despite opposing it morally, is that I want to leave as much room open for the action of the individual conscience. If people feel that their purchase of a product supports views which they find to be rephrehensible, then they are acting morally by boycotting those products.
Suppose the radio show was a subscription service. Would you consider it inappropriate for CAIR members to cancel their membership? To urge their members to do so? To urge others to do so?
A boycott is the same thing. Given the ad model which underwrites a huge portion of the public speech in this country, it is the only way to avoid subsidizing speech one finds to be reprehensible.
Frankly, I'm kind of stunned that you think supporting free speech requires one to be silent about the economic consequences of the purchases people make.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Some ideas are so stupid and offensive that the people they malign are, in my opinion, under no obligation-moral or otherwise-to rebutt them in a polite, civilized fashion but just to shut them up as quickly as possible.
Yes, but doesn't this approach get you in trouble a lot, Rakeesh? It's not really a matter of what you have an obligation to do. It's more a matter of how doing anything other than rebutting in a civilized fashion tends to be counterproductive. It tends to be not really a rebuttal at all, but rather an attack of some sort. People are either not convinced by those methods, or are tricked into being convinced (a bad thing, because when you are convinced of something, you want it to be for good reason, not because you are tricked.) Moreso, people tend to get mad.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ideas that promote the idea that Islam is a terrorist organization and thus Muslims are worthy of oppression, violence, and hatred in our everyday life is pretty damn serious and not necessarily worthy of waiting for a public forum of ideas. CAIR has to pick their battles, and the people being swayed by what that jackass was saying aren't very likely to be the people who listen to their reasoned defense.
You may well be right, Tresopax-but sometimes I don't care about getting in trouble. Sometimes it's worth it. In this case, for example-putting aside your personal criticism-this method was definitely very effective: the guy isn't espousing deceitful hatred to large numbers of people anymore.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Stormy, I was simply pointing out that just because you don't like their way of getting their message across doesn't mean that ti is wrong, nor should your opinion (or mine if I agree for that matter) outweigh the opinions of those people who were willing to express their disagreement with a boycott.
They limited his exposure, but in no way did they remove his freedom of speech...he is still free to say what he likes as often as he wants...
He just didn't have teh "right" of being payed for those opinions, or the right to broacast hsi views across the nation using THEIR studio, THEIR station, and THEIR name to give himself and his arguments creadance.
I understand what you are saying, but plain and simple he STILL has the right to say what he wants, so it isn't pure censorship...
quote: In the case of the Radio Announcer, He was exercising his free speech as well as the CAIR organization. The radio affiliate did in FACT restrict his free speech whether warranted or not. I expect the ACLU to defend him but should I not hold my breath?
What right of his was violated? I don't see any "right to the airwaves" anywhere in teh law books....
quote: when they attack an individual billboard owner on behalf of the abortion industry
Well, another case of bias exposed...
It couldn't POSSIBLY be that they were procecting the rights given to an individual, right....it HAS to be because or all those people getting rich off of baby-murder....
quote:I KNOW "GayRoks" is offensive to more people where I live (I could care less) than "NoGays" but the one was accepted and the other rejected, and also the ACLU wouldn't return the person's phone call requesting intervention.
One was discriminatory, one was inclusive....
Do you even know the purpose of teh ACLU? It is to defend people who might not be able to defend their rights otherwise...to defend the little guy against people/companies who can outspend him my rders of magnitude...
That is a gross oversimplification, but it is the basic premise...to defend rights given to us regardless of socioeconimic stauus or political clout.
I think it is fairly obvious which side needed the help with that case. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I really can't type when tired... Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I just wanted to say that I appreciated the exchange of views in this thread. At this point I don't really think I have much more to say in reply to what's been posted beyond what I've already said what seems like a million times, so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't reply to your replies to me and just let this drop.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Rakeesh
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
great timing, Bok! KoM illustrated your point.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Extremists are not picky about who they murder, as shown by the many muslims killed by suicide attacks in Iraq.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)