FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Once again free speech is misunderstood (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Once again free speech is misunderstood
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Yes. They said, "These ideas are so offensive that we will not support those who support them."

It says a lot about his ideas.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
I hate how CNN and Fox curtail my ability to engage on speech about the intelligent space bunnies.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Will B
Member
Member # 7931

 - posted      Profile for Will B   Email Will B         Edit/Delete Post 
Billboard said, ABORTION IS MURDER. The owner was an individual.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Then I would think the ACLU supported the free speech rights of the individual. I'd like a cite to look up the facts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Humean316
Member
Member # 8175

 - posted      Profile for Humean316   Email Humean316         Edit/Delete Post 
"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.

Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
newfoundlogic
Member
Member # 3907

 - posted      Profile for newfoundlogic   Email newfoundlogic         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Humean316
Member
Member # 8175

 - posted      Profile for Humean316   Email Humean316         Edit/Delete Post 
"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.

Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
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? [Wink]

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
newfoundlogic
Member
Member # 3907

 - posted      Profile for newfoundlogic   Email newfoundlogic         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Will B
Member
Member # 7931

 - posted      Profile for Will B   Email Will B         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Here's one about the Virginia license plate: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12191&printer-friendly=y . Sorry, it's AP, but we do what we can.

Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Humean316
Member
Member # 8175

 - posted      Profile for Humean316   Email Humean316         Edit/Delete Post 
"Anyone care to guess what side the ACLU took?"

"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.

Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
newfoundlogic
Member
Member # 3907

 - posted      Profile for newfoundlogic   Email newfoundlogic         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Humean316
Member
Member # 8175

 - posted      Profile for Humean316   Email Humean316         Edit/Delete Post 
"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.

Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
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... [Big Grin]

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Humean316
Member
Member # 8175

 - posted      Profile for Humean316   Email Humean316         Edit/Delete Post 
"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.

Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Humean316
Member
Member # 8175

 - posted      Profile for Humean316   Email Humean316         Edit/Delete Post 
Or what Tres said too. [Smile]
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
newfoundlogic
Member
Member # 3907

 - posted      Profile for newfoundlogic   Email newfoundlogic         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
quidscribis
Member
Member # 5124

 - posted      Profile for quidscribis   Email quidscribis         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Will B
Member
Member # 7931

 - posted      Profile for Will B   Email Will B         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Big Grin]

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

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
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.


http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/bioethics/facts/a0036233.cfm

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.

Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Will B
Member
Member # 7931

 - posted      Profile for Will B   Email Will B         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CStroman
Member
Member # 6872

 - posted      Profile for CStroman   Email CStroman         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Enigmatic
Member
Member # 7785

 - posted      Profile for Enigmatic   Email Enigmatic         Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 2715 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
There is no set of 'gay ideals'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CStroman
Member
Member # 6872

 - posted      Profile for CStroman   Email CStroman         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
quidscribis
Member
Member # 5124

 - posted      Profile for quidscribis   Email quidscribis         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
No, I'm indicating that it can be a reduction in speech without being a reduction in free speech.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
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... [Big Grin]

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.... [Roll Eyes]


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. [Big Grin]

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
I really can't type when tired... [Big Grin]
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2