LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

NY Times: Unlike Other, More Nuanced Nations, the US Clings to Free Speech

Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:11:03 pm PDT

The New York Times, scrupulously fair as always (cough), suggests that it might be time for the United States to reconsider this antiquated idea of “free speech” and join the rest of the world in prosecuting people like Mark Steyn: American Exception - Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech - Series - NYTimes.com.

Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.

“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”

Professor Waldron was reviewing “Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment” by Anthony Lewis, the former New York Times columnist. Mr. Lewis has been critical of attempts to use the law to limit hate speech.

But even Mr. Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections “in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.” In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.

Advertisement

372 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Racer X  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:12:22pm

[censored]

2 Nevergiveup  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:13:14pm

Was this an op-ed or an article? With the NYT it is not always so clear?

3 The Other Les  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:13:29pm

[deleted]

4 gman  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:13:43pm

America is not Europe. We take pride in our individual liberties!

5 Andrew X  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:14:32pm

"Prominent legal scholars" leads me to immediately consider Orwell's magnificent comment - "The man must be an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No ordinary man could ever be such a fool".

6 Nevergiveup  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:15:22pm

re: #4 gman

America is not Europe. We take pride in our individual liberties!

And pride in periodically restoring Europe's liberties!

7 coquimbojoe  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:15:58pm

These people are willing to kill us! Why is nobody being offended so precious? What If the tide turns and we (religious conservatives) get to choose what is offensive? The squealing would make you think of a thousand stuck pigs....

8 The Other Les  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:16:13pm

re: #6 Nevergiveup

And pride in periodically restoring Europe's liberties!

Which they periodically throw away again.

9 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:16:16pm
10 Thanos  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:16:22pm

The trial balloon goes up

11 jones  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:16:25pm

I hate to say it, but the urine art which I will not name beats EUtopian speech codes. Burn a flag if my other choice is Canada.

12 Genosaurer  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:16:42pm

The irony of a newspaper columnist arguing in favor of restrictions on free speech...

13 SasquatchOnSteroids  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:17:07pm

“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”

Do I need to add anything ? Nope. We know.

14 Nevergiveup  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:17:08pm

re: #7 coquimbojoe

These people are willing to kill us! Why is nobody being offended so precious? What If the tide turns and we (religious conservatives) get to choose what is offensive? The squealing would make you think of a thousand stuck pigs....

That mention of filthy pigs would offend Muslims you racist bastard.

15 VegasRick  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:17:14pm

Screw the NYT. Thank God (and the first amendment) I have the right to say that.

16 gman  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:17:18pm
But even Mr. Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections “in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.”

What else would you expect from a liberal?

17 Noam Sayin'  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:17:20pm

My, gawd. They've actually forgotten what the concept of Freedom of Speech is all about.

Waste.
Of.
Newsprint.

18 solomonpanting  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:17:25pm

Unlike Others, U.S. Believes Not Being Offended is a Protected Right

19 Thanos  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:17:53pm

The greatest danger to free speech comes from the left and moderates in this country.

20 bill shears  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:18:20pm

Well it's not like they forget where their own free expression bread is buttered. Their content has become so ineffectual and value-free (in the monetary and moral senses) that any government speech suppression would bring all other outlets down to their level of quality. It's a commercial move, really.

21 abolitionist  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:18:21pm
Mr. Steyn, the author of the article, said the Canadian proceedings had illustrated some important distinctions. “The problem with so-called hate speech laws is that they’re not about facts,” he said in a telephone interview. “They’re about feelings.”

The Muppet Show - Beaker

22 Killian Bundy  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:18:29pm

FCC Tries to Hush Rush

Thanks to a little-noticed item in the Federal Register, the Federal Communications Commission may soon be handed the power to drive Rush Limbaugh off the air.

There are liberals obsessed with “balancing” Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Mark Levin, and the rest of conservative talk radio, even though plenty of other outlets — the Washington Post, the New York Times, USA Today, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and National Public Radio — constantly flog the liberal agenda.

The “Hush Rush” crowd’s dream has been to revive the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” which once required any radio station airing a conservative program to provide equal time for the liberal view. The doctrine’s advocates have tried using the democratic process, but to no avail whatsoever: In 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected the latest effort 309 to 115.

Yet regulations proposed on January 28 by the Federal Communications Commission would effectively reinstate the Fairness Doctrine via something called “localism.” This is legislation by stealth — most of the Fairness Doctrine’s opponents might not know about it until it’s too late. All opportunity for public comment on FCC’s proposal ceases on June 11, 2008.

/and so it starts

23 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:19:06pm
24 JammieWearingFool  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:20:00pm

If we ban hate speech, doesn't that eliminate 99% of the leftist media?

/

25 solomonpanting  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:20:10pm

Allow me to try again:

Unlike Others, U.S. Believes Not Being Offended is Not a Protected Right

26 Nevergiveup  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:20:24pm

re: #23 buzzsawmonkey

Too many people confuse free speech and cheap talk.

Is that similar to free sex and promises promises?

27 ContraJihadi  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:20:33pm

Fools! What do they intend to do when the hate-speech commissars turn around and prosecute the N.Y. Times? Or maybe they would like to bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts? Hell, make one content-based exception to the First Amendment and there is nothing to stop others.

That rag deserves to be boycotted into bankruptcy.

28 DistantThunder  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:20:34pm

Part of the problem is that liberals despise most conservative thought. Simply listening to facts about single parent families, or out of wedlock births and connections to crime rates makes them come unglued.

Their ideas fall short when competing in the marketplace of ideas, hence the bankrupt Air America.

They want speech tariffs on conservative speech.

Anyone surprised?

29 goddessoftheclassroom  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:20:42pm

re: #11 jones

I hate to say it, but the urine art which I will not name beats EUtopian speech codes. Burn a flag if my other choice is Canada.

I completely agree with you. When I was younger, I thought burning the flag should be illegal, but I've learned why the right to burn it is so precious.

30 infidelia  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:20:50pm

re: #16 gman

What else would you expect from a liberal?

What is he basing that opinion on, the "principle" of "see what you made me do"?

31 Meremortal  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:21:08pm

Waldron has no right to say such a thing...

Whoops.

Waldron has no brains to say such a thing...

OK, that's better.

Hope he's not offended.
/

32 JammieWearingFool  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:21:24pm

re: #22 Killian Bundy
Same thing every year.

33 Racer X  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:21:26pm

re: #19 Thanos

The greatest danger to free speech comes from the left and moderates in this country.

Aint that the truth. The leftists whine and bitch about how Bush is a nazi and a fascist - not realizing how stupid they sound when they are allowed to say these things without repercussions.

34 paxnhymn  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:21:37pm

the NYT will be going through a name change if Obamessiah wins:

The Daily Capitulation


CHANGE!

35 indythinker  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:21:44pm

Give me liberty or give me death.

36 billhedrick  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:21:47pm

Steyn is right, it's America Alone - for now come next January and President Obama....
Well you know what happens.

37 pat  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:21:59pm

Oh I see. Let the crazies have their say while the sane cower.

38 rightymouse  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:22:16pm

What a bunch of crap.

39 guzziguy  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:22:18pm

You know the root of this article has to be a deep, abiding cowardice. He's thinking something akin to, "free speech pisses off those who don't like us. Then they want to fight. It's better that we just don't piss them off."

Man up, Nancy. Those among us who own a set will take care of you. Just stay the hell out of the way.

40 itellu3times  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:22:24pm

This is a tough question, the problem is who decides what is hate speech? Let me decide, and I'm all for the ban.

41 solomonpanting  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:22:40pm

Earlier this month, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined $23,000 in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep.

This alone is reason not to follow Europe's "lead".

42 DistantThunder  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:22:59pm

re: #22 Killian Bundy

FCC Tries to Hush Rush

/and so it starts

Localism

Is this what you are speaking about?

43 billhedrick  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:23:26pm

Conservatives what to change your mind, Liberals want to regulate your behavior.
The answer to bad speech isn't censorship, it's more speech.

44 Yankee Division Son  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:23:29pm

I dunno, I think there might be a advantage to curbing free speech, for instance maybe we could silence, once and for all, the New York Times.

They've been printing hate speech against America for quite some time...

45 gman  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:23:44pm

re: #6 Nevergiveup

And pride in periodically restoring Europe's liberties!

It's a vicious cycle and I don't see it ending until Europe embraces capitalism.

46 SasquatchOnSteroids  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:23:50pm

re: #33 Racer X

Aint that the truth. The leftists whine and bitch about how Bush is a nazi and a fascist - not realizing how stupid they sound when they are allowed to say these things without repercussions.

The biggest conspiracy has always been the fact that there is no conspiracy. Nobody's out to get you. Nobody gives a shit whether you live or die. There, you feel better now? Dennis Miller

47 abolitionist  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:23:52pm

Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. --George Orwell

48 The Other Les  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:24:04pm

re: #24 JammieWearingFool

If we ban hate speech, doesn't that eliminate 99% of the leftist media?

/

The local branch on Air America put up advertisements at bus promising to be "Talk radio without the lies." And my thought when reading that was, what are they going to do? Broadcast dead silence?

49 coquimbojoe  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:24:18pm

re: #14 Nevergiveup

That mention of filthy pigs would offend Muslims you racist bastard.

/Sorry/

50 Whiterasta  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:24:24pm

Free speech is an American concept...We don't need no stinking free speech here......

(Canadian Human Rights Expert....)

51 rightymouse  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:25:10pm

re: #44 Yankee Division Son

I dunno, I think there might be a advantage to curbing free speech, for instance maybe we could silence, once and for all, the New York Times.

They've been printing hate speech against America for quite some time...


Somehow, I don't believe that's what this guy has in mind.

52 itellu3times  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:25:17pm

re: #22 Killian Bundy

FCC Tries to Hush Rush
/and so it starts

Can't Bush quash this with a phone call?

53 calvin coolidge  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:25:21pm

Don't speak your mind, just eat your waffle.

54 JammieWearingFool  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:25:29pm

re: #48 The Other Les

The local branch on Air America put up advertisements at bus promising to be "Talk radio without the lies." And my thought when reading that was, what are they going to do? Broadcast dead silence?

It's why I've called them Dead Air America for their entire worthless existence.

55 Render  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:25:38pm

Now this is a bit confusing...

Is the NYSlimes now advocating for the imposition of the very censorship that they've claimed/complained the Bush administration has placed on them, even though they very obviously (Hersch) are not being censored by any government agencies?

LOST
HIGH
WAY,
R

56 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:25:41pm

Waldron's vision is obscured by the lining of his colon.

57 medaura18586  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:25:45pm

And silly me I thought I should be able to refuse to wear a seatbelt, even if the risk is imminent death!

let alone being made to eat my words, if there is "risk of imminent violence".

Blah!

58 pat  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:25:53pm

Wonder what other rights they want abandoned. The Second Amendment for sure. There own building was a public condemnation for private purposes.

59 The Other Les  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:25:58pm

re: #43 billhedrick

Conservatives what to change your mind, Liberals want to regulate your behavior.
The answer to bad speech isn't censorship, it's more speech.

Liberals know it all.

Conservative know that they don't know it all.

60 gman  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:26:12pm

re: #35 indythinker

Give me liberty or give me death.

If only more people felt like that....

Just imagine.

61 abolitionist  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:26:16pm

re: #18 solomonpanting

Huh?

62 gopninja  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:26:28pm

[this post censored by the NYT]

63 DistantThunder  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:26:29pm

re: #48 The Other Les

The local branch on Air America put up advertisements at bus promising to be "Talk radio without the lies." And my thought when reading that was, what are they going to do? Broadcast dead silence?

They are plain nuts. Reminds me of the one or two high school kids that always dress in super extreme bizzare clothes, then complain they are picked on and no one likes them.

64 mineral  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:26:31pm

As an American, I find Mr. Waldron's comments deeply, deeply offensive. I hold free speech dear to my heart, in a religious manner. For offending me thus, I propose that perhaps his tongue be chopped off. I am sure he would understand my reasoning and agree to the punishment.

;-)

65 ArmyWife  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:26:33pm

I am going to use the power of free choice to delete my comment in advance.

66 infidelia  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:26:42pm

re: #33 Racer X

Aint that the truth. The leftists whine and bitch about how Bush is a nazi and a fascist - not realizing how stupid they sound when they are allowed to say these things without repercussions.

They convince themselves that speaking out against the Bushitler is daaaan-gerrrrrr-ous and daring. It would be too much for even their narcisism to have to realized that they are safe, tolerated, and even laughed at.

67 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:26:43pm
68 galloping granny  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:27:21pm

I see plenty of reason not to be "more like the Europeans" when it comes to freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech is one of the most basic founding principles of our nation. We are the only nation in the world with the constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech. It is the very basis of our existence. While we have been placing men on the moon, preventing polio and feeding the world, the Europeans have been conducted internecine warfare for most of our existence.

I bet the New York Times would not be anywhere near so quick to suggest that we give up one of our other most basic and fundamental rights - Freedom of the Press.

69 Mars Needs Neocons  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:27:42pm

We're in a war of ideas and ideals, and they wish to take away the ammo.

70 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:27:50pm

Why do jerks like this and the NY Times not realize they will be an early target of speech restrictions?

The solution to hateful speech is more speech, not less.
Muslims are perfectly free to peacefully explain why they find the Mohammed cartoons offensive, just as Christians are free to explain why they find "piss Christ" offensive.

I have heard how Canada passed a law against speech that demeaned women, only to have some of its first victims be the women's rights group, with a book they had giving examples of such demeaning speech and why it is so bad.

71 Whiterasta  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:28:00pm

I hate the muslim terrorists.

Now lock me up........

72 akak  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:28:18pm

Fox is buying Little Mosque on the Prairie?

Doh I don't want to submit Marge!

73 The Other Les  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:28:20pm

re: #66 infidelia

Doing dangerous and daring stuff is dangerous.

74 Catttt  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:28:27pm

The NYT should move to Europe, where they belong.

75 gman  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:28:37pm

re: #55 Render

Now this is a bit confusing...

Is the NYSlimes now advocating for the imposition of the very censorship that they've claimed/complained the Bush administration has placed on them, even though they very obviously (Hersch) are not being censored by any government agencies?

LOST
HIGH
WAY,
R

Render always leaves the best signatures :)

76 kynna  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:28:39pm

And the next time one of their 'journalists' writes an inane article slamming women with thick ankles or men with thin ankles, they should be sued.

See how they like it then. Hate speech laws are The Blob.

77 DistantThunder  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:28:45pm

re: #57 medaura18586

And silly me I thought I should be able to refuse to wear a seatbelt, even if the risk is imminent death!

let alone being made to eat my words, if there is "risk of imminent violence".

Blah!

My son, 19, was in a bad car accident last night. Wrapped MY car around a tree on the rain slicked road. he was wearing a seatbelt but only the bottom part, the top he had tucked behind his arm. he cracked the windshield with his hard head - no bumps on his head. Bruised arms and knee caps.

78 Kenneth  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:28:52pm

One of the sentences Steyn is being tried for writing is,

"Muslims will breed like mosquitoes"

That offended some Muslims in Canada. The irony is, Steyn was quoting a Muslim, Mullah Krakar. Krakar is a Muslim extremist wanted for terrorism related charges in his native Iraq. Krakar lives as a political exile in Norway, where his right to print hate literature is protected by Norway's liberal laws. Krakar is free to write, "Muslims will breed like mosquitoes" (he said it as a boast as to how Islam will dominate Europe) without threat of prosecution. Mark Steyn quoted Krakar and is being persecuted for it.

How's that for irony?

79 the_flying_pig  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:29:10pm

What a f[censored] mo[censored] he is!

80 jorline  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:29:17pm

Hey Barry...is there enough room under that bus for free speech?

81 Dar ul Harb  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:29:18pm

re: #28 DistantThunder

Part of the problem is that liberals despise most conservative thought. Simply listening to facts about single parent families, or out of wedlock births and connections to crime rates makes them come unglued.

Airplanes never crashed in the old Soviet Union, either. And until he was overthrown, you never had all this terrible violence in Iraq under Saddam.

Right, Mr. Jordan?

82 Nevergiveup  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:29:29pm

re: #49 coquimbojoe

/Sorry/

The sad part is that you and I were both joking but up in Canada we might actually have been in trouble?

83 Maine's Michael  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:29:33pm

And I believe this is the reason for Steyn's book title: America Alone.

It is PRECISELY why Steyn believes the US has a future, and Western Europe, does not.

(That, and our tendency to pump out American babies)

“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books

And that, 'Dr.' Waldron, is why you are a legal philosopher know one has heard of, and Steyn is a best selling author.

84 Kenneth  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:29:39pm

re: #77 DistantThunder

Thank God he's alright! I bet you were rather shaken up too...

85 jaunte  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:30:09pm

re: #78 Kenneth

That's a tricky part of hate speech laws, when you can be prosecuted for quoting someone else's thought.

86 the_flying_pig  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:30:19pm

re: #77 DistantThunder

Glad your son is alright. Thanks God (and the inventor) for the seat belts.

87 Whiterasta  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:30:24pm

re: #77 DistantThunder

Crap!

Young men and fast machines....Glad he was not seriously hurt...

88 DistantThunder  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:30:24pm

re: #78 Kenneth

One of the sentences Steyn is being tried for writing is,

That offended some Muslims in Canada. The irony is, Steyn was quoting a Muslim, Mullah Krakar. Krakar is a Muslim extremist wanted for terrorism related charges in his native Iraq. Krakar lives as a political exile in Norway, where his right to print hate literature is protected by Norway's liberal laws. Krakar is free to write, "Muslims will breed like mosquitoes" (he said it as a boast as to how Islam will dominate Europe) without threat of prosecution. Mark Steyn quoted Krakar and is being persecuted for it.

How's that for irony?

You can't make this stuff up.

89 jemima  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:30:35pm

#67

Oh Buzz! (Swoon!) Perfectly said!

90 lostlakehiker  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:30:51pm

So, these legal scholars think that if some not-to-be-named religion makes it a habit and practice of responding to criticism with murder, arson, and mayhem, then it should be illegal to point out that pattern, because to do so will trigger more of the same.

91 MarkX  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:30:54pm
Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.

Bull.Shit.

Who?

/thank you Ivy League

92 gman  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:31:17pm

re: #77 DistantThunder

My son, 19, was in a bad car accident last night. Wrapped MY car around a tree on the rain slicked road. he was wearing a seatbelt but only the bottom part, the top he had tucked behind his arm. he cracked the windshield with his hard head - no bumps on his head. Bruised arms and knee caps.

Thank goodness he's going to be all right.

93 jaunte  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:31:24pm

re: #90 lostlakehiker

hatethoughtcrime.

94 galloping granny  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:31:37pm

re: #77 DistantThunder

My son, 19, was in a bad car accident last night. Wrapped MY car around a tree on the rain slicked road. he was wearing a seatbelt but only the bottom part, the top he had tucked behind his arm. he cracked the windshield with his hard head - no bumps on his head. Bruised arms and knee caps.

Somebody was watching out for that young man.

95 solomonpanting  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:31:55pm
Jason Gratl, a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Journalists, which have intervened in the case in support of the magazine, was measured in his criticism of the law forbidding hate speech.
“Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech,” Mr. Gratl said in a telephone interview. “We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat.”

You "don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas." Yep, you allow someone else to dictate which ideas are to be peddled.

96 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:32:08pm
“Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech,” Mr. Gratl said in a telephone interview. “We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat.”

Their ideas are dispensed by the government?

97 medaura18586  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:32:08pm

re: #77 DistantThunder

My son, 19, was in a bad car accident last night. Wrapped MY car around a tree on the rain slicked road. he was wearing a seatbelt but only the bottom part, the top he had tucked behind his arm. he cracked the windshield with his hard head - no bumps on his head. Bruised arms and knee caps.

Ouch, very sorry to hear. Is he alright though? I mean,... considering.

I don't wear a seatbelt unless whoever is driving the car urges me to because s/he would get fined if I got caught without one. I just hate seatbelts and I don't think it should be the government's role to protect me from my (admittedly) poor safety choices. If I get into an accident, I don't claim anyone else should be forced to pay for my emergency care either.

So see? no externalities.

Hope your son recovers soon though.

98 DistantThunder  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:32:12pm

re: #84 Kenneth

Thank God he's alright! I bet you were rather shaken up too...

And thank God for airbags. Yes, Mr. DT was out of town but on his way home in time to pick him up from the hospital with me because....I no longer have a car....but I do not have a car.

Mr. DT was also out of town last week when son, 9, stepped on a rusty nail.

99 brickthruplateglasswindow  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:32:16pm

You know...that silly Constitution and Bill of Rights thingy is soooo 18th Century.

100 Kenneth  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:32:31pm

re: #85 jaunte

The people who complained about Steyn when he wrote it, probably agreed with Mullah Krakar when he said it.

101 DistantThunder  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:32:34pm

re: #90 lostlakehiker

So, these legal scholars think that if some not-to-be-named religion makes it a habit and practice of responding to criticism with murder, arson, and mayhem, then it should be illegal to point out that pattern, because to do so will trigger more of the same.

Bullies think like this.

102 goddessoftheclassroom  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:32:48pm

re: #77 DistantThunder

My son, 19, was in a bad car accident last night. Wrapped MY car around a tree on the rain slicked road. he was wearing a seatbelt but only the bottom part, the top he had tucked behind his arm. he cracked the windshield with his hard head - no bumps on his head. Bruised arms and knee caps.

{Distant Thunder}

I am so thankful for his safety.

103 MarkX  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:32:55pm

re: #69 Mars Needs Neocons

We're in a war of ideas and ideals, and they wish to take away the ammo.

Yeah.

And I'd advise those prominent legal scholars to not bring knives. This will be a gun fight.

104 coquimbojoe  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:32:58pm

re: #82 Nevergiveup

The sad part is that you and I were both joking but up in Canada we might actually have been in trouble?

That is sad. We may be on the path to hell, so to speak...

105 lostlakehiker  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:32:59pm

re: #83 Maine's Michael

know one has heard of?

Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman.

106 Kenneth  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:33:06pm

re: #96 wrenchwench

Yes, it's called the CBC.

107 Ojoe  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:33:28pm

Allah Ipecac
Muhammad Ipecac

Bite my shiny metal ass.

108 infidelia  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:33:32pm

re: #77 DistantThunder

My son, 19, was in a bad car accident last night. Wrapped MY car around a tree on the rain slicked road. he was wearing a seatbelt but only the bottom part, the top he had tucked behind his arm. he cracked the windshield with his hard head - no bumps on his head. Bruised arms and knee caps.

The lap belts can be surprisingly effective. My first accident (1984) I only had a lap belt and I was injured less severely than in the second with a shoulder-lap even though the speed and angle were very similar. Won't be without some sort of seat belt though.

109 jaunte  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:33:34pm

re: #100 Kenneth

It's odd that Krekar's brag, when uttered by a non-muslim, would be the occasion for a seethe.

110 Catttt  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:33:41pm
111 troonbop  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:33:57pm

Yeah, when it was just Christians getting angry, the NYT and their liberal pundits were balls to the wall free speechers...but now it's somebody who's scaring them and it's time to shut up.
So here's a question: which is more disgusting, their cowardice or their lack of principle?
As for the acts of terrorism, note the complete lack of responsibility, it's our job not to annoy them. First it will be silence, then next it's agreement, or else. I wouldn't expect any of these jackasses to figure that out.

112 The Other Les  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:34:07pm

re: #81 Dar ul Harb

Airplanes never crashed in the old Soviet Union, either. And until he was overthrown, you never had all this terrible violence in Iraq under Saddam.

Right, Mr. Jordan?

A Soviet (formerly Italian) battleship blew up and sank at anchor. That was covered up too.

113 MarkX  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:34:08pm

re: #94 galloping granny

Oh... oh ... oh.... I know who! I know who!
It was [censored].

114 right wing zephyr  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:34:11pm

As President I will immediately clean out the NY Times building and turn it into a center for cybernauts. With really big fat data pipes. And lotsa chairs.

115 galloping granny  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:34:29pm

re: #95 solomonpanting

You "don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas." Yep, you allow someone else to dictate which ideas are to be peddled.

That is why we are America and they are not.

116 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:34:40pm

I suddenly have an urge to run through the Slimes' building screaming, "FIRE!".

117 infidelia  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:34:49pm

re: #78 Kenneth

One of the sentences Steyn is being tried for writing is,


That offended some Muslims in Canada. The irony is, Steyn was quoting a Muslim, Mullah Krakar. Krakar is a Muslim extremist wanted for terrorism related charges in his native Iraq. Krakar lives as a political exile in Norway, where his right to print hate literature is protected by Norway's liberal laws. Krakar is free to write, "Muslims will breed like mosquitoes" (he said it as a boast as to how Islam will dominate Europe) without threat of prosecution. Mark Steyn quoted Krakar and is being persecuted for it.

How's that for irony insanity?

Fixed it for ya.

118 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:35:27pm

re: #110 Catttt

A Time for Choosing - Ronald Reagan

You're gonna make me cry now.

119 Kenneth  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:35:36pm

re: #109 jaunte

It's odd that Krekar's brag, when uttered by a non-muslim, would be the occasion for a seethe.

The rage of Caliban seeing himself in a mirror.

120 bbuddha  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:35:53pm

#67 buzzsawmonkey perfectly said
sounded a little like Ayn Rand.

121 ironbill  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:35:58pm

OK, let me see if I got this correct. The New York Times has written a gazillion editorials declaring that President Bush has trampled on our fundamental freedoms as delineated in the Bill of Rights... But... We should enact laws that restrict our freedom of expression.

Do I have that right, or am I the one who is all f#@^*+ up

122 galloping granny  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:36:12pm

re: #108 infidelia

The lap belts can be surprisingly effective. My first accident (1984) I only had a lap belt and I was injured less severely than in the second with a shoulder-lap even though the speed and angle were very similar. Won't be without some sort of seat belt though.

That is true. And if you are as short as I am, the shoulder harness can be downright dangerous. Most shoulder harnesses literally cut directly across my neck with only my chin to hold it down. In an accident I would be decapitated. Some newer cars come with an adjustable harness that can be lowered, but not always enough to make it safe for me to wear.

123 DistantThunder  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:36:40pm

re: #102 goddessoftheclassroom

{Distant Thunder}

I am so thankful for his safety.

Thank you, yes, to see the car is frighting and realize that is exactly how people die. Seven people drove past without stopping while he lie on the ground - one young woman finally stopped.

The nurse at the ER told us she got sued once after stopping at an accident - all she had done was call 911, but they complained she should have done more - it was thrown out.

Another time she said that a woman in front of her hit 5 different cars, drunk, and that the nurse pulled over to check on the victims., She was supoenened more than 12 times in 2 years by the different lawyers and each time had to take off work.

124 paxnhymn  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:36:48pm

re: #97 medaura18586

Ouch, very sorry to hear. Is he alright though? I mean,... considering.

I don't wear a seatbelt unless whoever is driving the car urges me to because s/he would get fined if I got caught without one. I just hate seatbelts and I don't think it should be the government's role to protect me from my (admittedly) poor safety choices. If I get into an accident, I don't claim anyone else should be forced to pay for my emergency care either.

So see? no externalities.

Hope your son recovers soon though.


I know you live in Canada, but does that mean that if you lived in the US you would refuse Medicare health care supplements because the people are not respinsible for taking care of your age appropriate illnesses, and that you should have made those provisions yourself? Just asking...after all, you like testing, so...

125 Ojoe  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:36:52pm

Eat my toasted shorts in hell

126 akak  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:37:08pm
Though Gaddafi referred to Obama as, "Our brother, the Kenyan with American nationality," he also said he expected more from the Illinois Democrat. (AP)

Raila Raila Raila what did you promise al- Qaeda Muamar?

127 lostlakehiker  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:37:11pm

re: #97 medaura18586

You're in the happy position of being a free rider. You don't THINK you should be covered in case of drastic head injury, but you are. ER's have to take you and do whatever they can to fix up the mess you made of your body.

Granted you should have the right to not wear a seatbelt, it's irresponsible not to. We had a life-flight copter go down with 3 personnel and one patient killed just recently. Other people pay the price, with their lives sometimes, when unnecessary severe injuries occur.

128 rollingdivision  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:37:19pm

Generally, the very same liberals, progressives (sic) socialists and communists that rail against the government intercepting communications from known terrorists to the US on the basis of free speech rights are the very same people who whole heartedly advocate ending our right of freedom of speech via hate speech laws. There are many who want to take away our rights.

129 right wing zephyr  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:37:21pm

I just reconsidered my position on free speech.

I have concluded once again, to keep it.

/happy now dumbfukk?

130 Maine's Michael  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:38:32pm

WHat I want to know is why in every western nation where speech is regulated so as not to effend anybody, Muslims routinely have the right to peddle the most vicious Jew hatred to each other and whoever else will listen, with impunity?

That goes for Canada too, by the way.

Why do they get an exemption?

The fact that europe chooses, by its inactions, to allow hate speech against Jews puts the lie to the claim that anti-zioniam is a different beast.

131 brickthruplateglasswindow  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:38:58pm

Paging, Dr. Kervorkian. Dr. Kervorkian the Old Gray Lady is here to see you now.

132 lawhawk  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:38:59pm

Well, 232 years of history can't be right, now can it? The NYT and the guys they got to say that we could stand a bit of Euro-tweaking of the most sacred of our rights - so important that it was the first among the bill of rights - seem to forget that very basic fact.

133 shibumi  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:39:05pm

re: #106 Kenneth

Yes, it's called the CBC.

Oh yes, the CBC. We get that in the Detroit area. A few weeks ago, they were trumpeting the fact that 'Canada has reached Mars!'

Later in the broadcast, then went on to say that indeed Canada made a *part* of a lab that was on the Mars Rover.

Orwell would have loved that government regulated television.

134 Nevergiveup  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:39:05pm

re: #121 ironbill

OK, let me see if I got this correct. The New York Times has written a gazillion editorials declaring that President Bush has trampled on our fundamental freedoms as delineated in the Bill of Rights... But... We should enact laws that restrict our freedom of expression.

Do I have that right, or am I the one who is all f#@^*+ up

You got it right, but as to your own mental health, well that is still an open question?

135 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:39:20pm
136 DistantThunder  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:39:31pm

re: #128 rollingdivision

Generally, the very same liberals, progressives (sic) socialists and communists that rail against the government intercepting communications from known terrorists to the US on the basis of free speech rights are the very same people who whole heartedly advocate ending our right of freedom of speech via hate speech laws. There are many who want to take away our rights.

It's because they can't maintain control any other way.

137 Charles  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:39:39pm

After getting yet another email saying, "Hey, where's my hat tip? I posted this in the comments last night!" I need to say:

This article is in the New York Times. I'm not going to start searching LGF for references to every article I post.

The complaining about hat tips is getting out of control.

138 M. Bensson-Levi  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:39:41pm

The First Amendment is primarily for the protection of POLITICAL speech, which is intrinsically OFFENSIVE.

It is speech that we find most offensive that we are most obligated to defend.

THAT, is the AMERICAN way, OUR way. Let the rest of the world do as it pleases, and be damned!

While we are discussing the First Amendment, it is long past time that the McCain-Feingold assault on free speech was revisited, and declared unconstitutional.

Bush, in a supreme act of political cowardice, passed the buck on to SCOTUS, who erred grievously (f*cked up royally) in their decision on the matter. McCain-Feingold is clearly unconstitutional.

139 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:40:10pm
liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect


Fuck that.

140 Manster  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:40:17pm

Free speech = Bush in office

Censored speech = Hussein in office

141 Fast Eddie  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:40:25pm

You can have my free speech when you pry it from my cold, dead lips!

142 shibumi  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:40:35pm

re: #111 troonbop


As for the acts of terrorism, note the complete lack of responsibility, it's our job not to annoy them. First it will be silence, then next it's agreement, or else. I wouldn't expect any of these jackasses to figure that out.

I believe the word you're looking for is appeasement.

It's the liberal solution for every international problem that could ever be imagined.

143 Dar ul Harb  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:40:49pm

re: #96 wrenchwench

Their ideas are dispensed by the government?

Single-payer, dontcha know?

"Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd like to obtain a Government grant to help me develop it."
--Mr Putey (Michael Palin), Monty Python's Flying Circus "Ministry Of Silly Walks" sketch

144 medaura18586  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:40:56pm

re: #124 paxnhymn

I know you live in Canada, but does that mean that if you lived in the US you would refuse Medicare health care supplements because the people are not respinsible for taking care of your age appropriate illnesses, and that you should have made those provisions yourself? Just asking...after all, you like testing, so...

I actually live in the US right now, Canada schanada....

I would refuse Medicare, but also would demand to not have to pay taxes to support other people's Medicare. I don't want the extra privileges, I don't want the extra burdens either. Of course I should make these provisions myself, but I need more coin in my pocket after taxes to be able to afford myself the provisions.

Now what was that about me like testing?

145 rorschach  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:41:14pm

I don't believe there is a verdict yet in the Steyn/Kangaroo Court debaucle. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

If the "court" finds Steyn and MacLeans innocent so that they can't appeal to a real court, I'd like to see MacLeans (sp?) put their resources behind the poor minister who was recently convicted of anti-gay hate speech, and help him appeal.

This cannot stop until it's over.

146 ironbill  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:41:25pm

re: #134 Nevergiveup

You got it right to bro (do we know each other?)

147 SasquatchOnSteroids  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:41:36pm

re: #74 Catttt

The NYT should move to Europe, where they belong.

and take the UN with them.

148 DistantThunder  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:41:42pm

re: #137 Charles

After getting yet another email saying, "Hey, where's my hat tip? I posted this in the comments last night!" I need to say:

This article is in the New York Times. I'm not going to start searching LGF for references to every article I post.

The complaining about hat tips is getting out of control.

Call the Wahaaaaaambulance.! Just having the privilege to post on LGF is enough notoriety for me. Hat tip, indeed.

I tell all my friends to look for me at LGF.

149 Pshawalaw  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:41:58pm

Thank god we still had free speech today, it got Obama's VP selector Johnson to resign. Another triumph for free speech and blogs.

150 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:42:02pm

re: #137 Charles

After getting yet another email saying, "Hey, where's my hat tip? I posted this in the comments last night!" I need to say:

This article is in the New York Times. I'm not going to start searching LGF for references to every article I post.

The complaining about hat tips is getting out of control.

I'm happy with the one hat tip I got long ago. Thanks Charles.

I just enjoy being here.

151 Whiterasta  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:42:21pm

re: #141 Fast Eddie

That can be arranged......

152 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:42:29pm

re: #139 Killgore Trout

Fuck that.

Amen. Fuck that.

153 paxnhymn  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:42:29pm

re: #139 Killgore Trout

Fuck that.

maybe this f*ck should be informed that this ain't a liberal democracy...

just trying to help out Captain Obvious.

154 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:42:35pm

FAQ

Q. I sent Charles an email about the story he posted but he didn’t give me the hat tip. Why not, and how can I get him to give it to me?
A. Just because you emailed a story to Charles or were the first person to link to it, it doesn't mean that's the first place he saw it. He does his own research, he gets dozens of emails when major news breaks, and lots of people will post links to an important story. So the hat tip (if any) goes to wherever Charles remembers seeing it first, and that's final. :-) It’s considered poor form to ask for a hat tip.
155 Ojoe  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:42:42pm

re: #145 rorschach

Either we win, or freedom will exist only in our minds, for centuries.

156 goddessoftheclassroom  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:43:02pm

re: #154 Killgore Trout

FAQ

Well done.

157 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:43:41pm
158 infidelia  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:43:45pm

re: #116 Ward Cleaver

I suddenly have an urge to run through the Slimes' building screaming, "FIRE!".

You can be prosecuted for "shouting FIRE in a crowded theater" because the fear of fire by people packed into an enclosed space can reasonably be expected to lead to panic and injuries. You also cannot whip up a mob and bellow "A riot is a terrible thing. And I think it's just about time we had one!" Funny in a Mel movie but incitement to violence otherwise. That is not what the cartoonists and other practioners of free speech are doing. Those who view, read, or hear about such speech are free to ignore, deplore, argue against or denounce it, but if they resort to violence it is they who are to blame and who should be prosecuted.

159 Son Of The Godfather  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:43:52pm

WTF is supposed to be "offensive"?...

Piss Christ?... Nope, guess not.
Virgin Mary done in fecal matter?... Nah.

A comic strip featuring the prophet?... KILL THEM!

When we start capitulating to certain groups (read: Islam) because followers of this cult (whoops! Call the ACLU) are offended at the drop of a hat, we do not deserve the freedoms we already enjoy. The freedoms that thousands have died for.

STOP the P.C. nonsense NOW or it will destroy us.
This is America, for crying out load. I really don't give a sh*t if exposing radical islam causes 1000 rage-boys... My country, my rules. Don't like it, f-ing leave or die.

160 Ojoe  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:44:07pm

Free Sasquatch moons the world with his furry butt.

161 000G  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:44:07pm

I live in Europe! Halp!

162 anotherindyfilmguy  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:44:28pm

re: #52 itellu3times

Looks like it'll be lawyer time soon then...

163 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:44:53pm

re: #156 goddessoftheclassroom

If Charles puts up a thread about the FAQ I'm expecting to get my hat tip.
/

164 ironbill  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:45:02pm

The New York Times offends me. I want it declared as a purveyor of hate speech and shut down.

165 Fast Eddie  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:45:10pm

#151 Whiterasta -- we also have a 2nd Amendment, which serves to protect the 1st.

Ain't it wonderful how these things work out?

166 right wing zephyr  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:45:13pm

No hat tips for you!

/hat tip nazi

167 Ojoe  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:45:19pm

re: #161 000G

so? light a car on fire.

/joking

168 brickthruplateglasswindow  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:45:23pm

re: #137 Charles

After getting yet another email saying, "Hey, where's my hat tip? I posted this in the comments last night!" I need to say:

This article is in the New York Times. I'm not going to start searching LGF for references to every article I post.

The complaining about hat tips is getting out of control.

Charles, is this a bad time to ask about my Zionist check? I noticed the additional deductions I requested, still have not started. Thank you.

169 JeremyR  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:45:29pm

re: #11 jones

I hate to say it, but the urine art which I will not name beats EUtopian speech codes. Burn a flag if my other choice is Canada.

I think some actions are also free speach, such as smacking the urine artist up along side his thick skull. I'd support that.

170 razorbacker  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:45:38pm

To be fair...the Times was for free speech before they decided they were against it.

171 Nevergiveup  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:45:40pm

re: #154 Killgore Trout

FAQ

So I guess a BJ is out of.....

sorry couldn't help myself.

172 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:45:43pm

re: #158 infidelia

You can be prosecuted for "shouting FIRE in a crowded theater" because the fear of fire by people packed into an enclosed space can reasonably be expected to lead to panic and injuries. You also cannot whip up a mob and bellow "A riot is a terrible thing. And I think it's just about time we had one!" Funny in a Mel movie but incitement to violence otherwise. That is not what the cartoonists and other practioners of free speech are doing. Those who view, read, or hear about such speech are free to ignore, deplore, argue against or denounce it, but if they resort to violence it is they who are to blame and who should be prosecuted.

I know, I just wanted to piss them off like they piss me off.

173 goddessoftheclassroom  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:45:47pm

re: #160 Ojoe

Free Sasquatch moons the world with his furry butt.

A former student of mine used to have (way too) long hair and went by "Sasquatch." I keep picturing him when I read "Sasquatch" here at LGF. After your post, I need industrial-strength brain bleach.

174 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:46:07pm

re: #161 000G

I live in Europe! Halp!

Come on over!

175 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:46:13pm
176 infidelia  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:46:28pm

re: #157 buzzsawmonkey

On the Good Ship Censorship
--with apologies to R. Whiting and S. Clare, and "On the Good Ship Lollipop"

On the good ship censorship
We'll implant in your brain a microchip
And you'll never say
Something that might darken someone's day.

Vacant smiles will be everywhere
Everyone with an empty stare
But you won't offend
The means will be justified by the end.

You won't need brain bleach, 'cause any hate speech
Will give you an awful cramp
If you think for yourself, ooh ooh
You'll go to re-education camp.

On the good ship censorship
There'll be no drips, we will all be hip
'Cause we'll think the same
On the good ship censorship.


Which reminds me, if Tom Kratman drops by tell him I liked his book "The Caliphate". He'll recognize the reference to brain microchips.

177 offendi  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:46:40pm

It seems to me that this dovetails very nicely with the Obama campaign. Certainly a President Obama could reference the hateful racist speech and the anecdotal and perhaps real death threats he received in the process of his campaign as a basis for a Democratic Congress to visit the issue and legislate.

This begs the issue of what "hateful" is, and the relationship of the "hate" to the real or perceived harm. A extremely slippery and dangerous slope.

178 Ojoe  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:46:45pm

re: #173 goddessoftheclassroom

Ah yes, But remember, Sasquatch is on our side.

BBL

179 Render  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:46:57pm

Hat tips?

I work for positive dings...

CHEAP
DATE,
R

180 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:47:04pm

re: #171 Nevergiveup

...Yes, it is.

181 jorline  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:47:12pm

OT

Don't worry, our liberal Congress will fix the soaring price of gas.

Answer...you got it...a step back in time, Mass Transit!

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

/where's my magic wand?

182 right wing zephyr  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:47:25pm

I am organizing a depantsing party to convene at the Times building tmrw at 12:00. Anyone with a NY Times badge will be subject to a pants dropping.

depants them all!

183 SasquatchOnSteroids  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:48:01pm

re: #178 Ojoe

Ah yes, But remember, Sasquatch is on our side.

BBL

Thasss right.

184 Racer X  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:48:07pm

Forget the hat tip - someone pass me a beer.

185 TS  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:48:26pm

"...protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”

The atmosphere will protect itself as long as their is free speech, free press and conscience.

Thank God for the internet.

186 paxnhymn  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:48:33pm

re: #144 medaura18586

I actually live in the US right now, Canada schanada....

I would refuse Medicare, but also would demand to not have to pay taxes to support other people's Medicare. I don't want the extra privileges, I don't want the extra burdens either. Of course I should make these provisions myself, but I need more coin in my pocket after taxes to be able to afford myself the provisions.

Now what was that about me like testing?

very good. I had looked in on your site, and had noticed you posing you ideas as a "test". I always thought they were rather snarky. But in retrospect, when you get past the snarkyness of youth (I have a daughter your age) you thought processes are actually quite fluid and make sense of someone twice your age, so I think I like you more. I like you answer on Medicare as well, because most of the time people spew about not wanting to be "on the dole" until in comes their turn. Good honest answer. Now we just need to work on your theology and you could be someone to lead these young people.

187 M. Bensson-Levi  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:48:43pm

re: #22 Killian Bundy

Important post. Thanks.

188 Sunlight  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:49:03pm

The problem with "hate speech" or "hate crimes" is that then everything revolves around intent or state of mind rather than crime. So the trial of the guy who shot people in the Seattle Jewish Federation office is stalled out by discussions of his intent (not even his mental state). We've confused the issue so much that a dead person in a stairwell confuses people. A lot because of the limits on free speech we already have in place through our press and education system.

189 anotherindyfilmguy  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:49:03pm

re: #179 Render

If you went to bat for dings would that make you a dingbatter...
ta-ching

190 offendi  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:49:13pm

As a followup to my other post : How would a picture of Obama encased in a jar of urine or elephant dung be treated?

191 Nevergiveup  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:49:16pm

re: #182 right wing zephyr

I am organizing a depantsing party to convene at the Times building tmrw at 12:00. Anyone with a NY Times badge will be subject to a pants dropping.

depants them all!

Since people probably sit on their asses there all day, that might not be such an attractive site?

192 paxnhymn  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:49:21pm

re: #154 Killgore Trout

FAQ

I have never gotten a hat tip nor asked for one...what's the big deal?

193 Armywife  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:49:26pm

re: #127 lostlakehiker

Backing this up - I struggle with the govt mandating this, BUT my husband is a paramedic. He has to clean up the mess, whether you want him to or not. Nothing like trying to hold together someone who rocket launched through the windshield and landed on pavement. He has witnessed a few accidents where the seat belt contributed to the injury, however he has seen far, far more where the occupant walked away because they had their's on. We all have seat belt cutters in our cars as a precaution, but you better believe those seat belts are ON.

194 Render  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:49:38pm

re: #175 wrenchwench

The bass drum sez "Queen" on it. Is that Roger Taylor behind the kit?

...

And does Charles own a white Strat?

POKIN,
R

195 Pshawalaw  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:49:49pm

re: #175 wrenchwench

you can leave your hat on

That first backup singer we see, is that Barry O?

196 ironbill  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:50:10pm

Tonights drinking word: hat tip

197 lawhawk  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:50:13pm

Here's the thing about hat tips - you've got to be finding something pretty special and unique to get 'em these days. You can't just email or post a NYT article and think that you're going to get one.

You've got to do something original - find an obscure source or do some digging to get stuff that other people have overlooked. Maybe pen a blog post that really is worthwhile.

Because everyone can read the NYT, WaPo or any of the big media outlets.

Heck, you can pretty much find out what's going on in the ME via the Jpost, YnetNews and other Israeli papers.

It's picking out the more interesting pieces that may get you a HT - that is if some other lizard isn't faster to the draw.

And that's why I console myself with spinoffs. If you find good ones, they'll percolate to the top.

198 jorline  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:50:16pm

re: #184 Racer X

Forget the hat tip - someone pass me a beer.

racer, what's with the beer tonight? You OK?

199 jaunte  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:50:17pm

re: #184 Racer X

[Link: www.flickr.com...]

200 Armywife  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:50:26pm

re: #154 Killgore Trout

FAQ

Finishing school with the lot of them!

201 dgax65  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:50:45pm

For decades, these worthless, POS liberals have been telling us that, no matter how disgusting, profane or treasonous, all speech was protected under the First Amendment. Now that free speech comes in conflict with their dangerously distorted world-view they are quick to break out the muzzle. Hypocritical doesn't even come close to describing these vermin.

This is perfect example of the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are guided by a set of core beliefs which remain constant, regardless of the situation. Liberals just do whatever the f*ck makes them feel good at that moment in time. Liberals are fundamentally immature and therefore dangerous.

202 Steffan  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:51:07pm

I guess Mark Steyn is doubleplus ungood, hmmm?

203 Karagush  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:51:23pm

re: #123 DistantThunder

Thank you, yes, to see the car is frighting and realize that is exactly how people die. Seven people drove past without stopping while he lie on the ground - one young woman finally stopped.

The nurse at the ER told us she got sued once after stopping at an accident - all she had done was call 911, but they complained she should have done more - it was thrown out.

Another time she said that a woman in front of her hit 5 different cars, drunk, and that the nurse pulled over to check on the victims., She was supoenened more than 12 times in 2 years by the different lawyers and each time had to take off work.

that is an awful indictment of our society as it exists today.
But i am so glad your son is unhurt. When its not your day, its not your day.
Evidently G-d said to your son, Its not Today, son, someday later. But not now.

Hope he grins every time he sees the sun come up for a while!

204 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:51:46pm

re: #175 wrenchwench

Joe Cocker rules

205 GeeWiz  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:51:46pm

I have just one question for the NYT, at what point do we stop out-sourcing our freedoms to the more "progressive nations"?

206 goddessoftheclassroom  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:51:47pm

re: #183 SasquatchOnSteroids

Thasss right.

You didn't go to school in Western PA, did you?

207 saberry0530  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:52:14pm

re: #28 DistantThunder

Part of the problem is that liberals despise most conservative thought. Simply listening to facts about single parent families, or out of wedlock births and connections to crime rates makes them come unglued.

Their ideas fall short when competing in the marketplace of ideas, hence the bankrupt Air America.

They want speech tariffs onno conservative speech.

Anyone surprised?

couldn't let this one slide.

208 Dar ul Harb  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:52:19pm

re: #181 jorline

OT

Don't worry, our liberal Congress will fix the soaring price of gas.

Answer...you got it...a step back in time, Mass Transit!

Yes, they've decided what Homeland Security really needs is more forms of transportation where large numbers of people are crowded together while traveling at high speed...

209 lawhawk  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:52:28pm

re: #181 jorline

They still can't break even, and need subsidies, so yes, the Amtrak system needs to be revisited, but since it is like the defense industry where every state stands to benefit - the pork is spread out to practically every district so as to make it impossible to start with a clean slate and provide good intracity high speed rail. Because Amtrak has failed miserably despite the billions spent so far.

210 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:52:47pm
211 galloping granny  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:52:59pm

re: #193 Armywife

Backing this up - I struggle with the govt mandating this, BUT my husband is a paramedic. He has to clean up the mess, whether you want him to or not. Nothing like trying to hold together someone who rocket launched through the windshield and landed on pavement. He has witnessed a few accidents where the seat belt contributed to the injury, however he has seen far, far more where the occupant walked away because they had their's on. We all have seat belt cutters in our cars as a precaution, but you better believe those seat belts are ON.

My sister is a nurse these days, but when she was in the AF she had your hubbies job, then got out and went to work in a big city ER about the same time they put in the motorcycle helmet laws. To this day she calls motorcycle helmets (and she rides a Harley) "brain buckets" - for obvious reasons. Not too pretty I hear.

212 Racer X  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:53:00pm

re: #198 jorline

racer, what's with the beer tonight? You OK?

I am doing great!

I just like beer.

213 Son Of The Godfather  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:53:03pm

re: #190 offendi

As a followup to my other post : How would a picture of Obama encased in a jar of urine or elephant dung be treated?

Obviously that's BOTH hate-speech AND racism!

214 infidelia  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:53:13pm

re: #122 galloping granny

That is true. And if you are as short as I am, the shoulder harness can be downright dangerous. Most shoulder harnesses literally cut directly across my neck with only my chin to hold it down. In an accident I would be decapitated. Some newer cars come with an adjustable harness that can be lowered, but not always enough to make it safe for me to wear.

I think we discussed this some months ago. I now have a big white diagonal seatbelt scar across my throat so I do know what those things can do. On the other hand it's nice for reminding folks at work that I could have been killed but I came back to work before I was properly healed and they better appreciate me. Doesn't work as well as it did 3 years ago...

215 Noam Sayin'  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:53:14pm

From the FAQ:

Q. What's a hat tip?
A. A hat tip is Charles's way of thanking you on the front page for bringing an interesting item to his attention. (If you’re interested you can read the history of doffing (or “tipping”) hats.)

Q. I sent Charles an email about the story he posted but he didn’t give me the hat tip. Why not, and how can I get him to give it to me?
A. Just because you emailed a story to Charles or were the first person to link to it, it doesn't mean that's the first place he saw it. He does his own research, he gets dozens of emails when major news breaks, and lots of people will post links to an important story. So the hat tip (if any) goes to wherever Charles remembers seeing it first, and that's final. :-) It’s considered poor form to ask for a hat tip.

AKA, "The F*cking Manual"

216 pegcity  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:53:19pm

Ladies and gentlemen, er, we've just lost the picture, but,
uh, what we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft
has been taken over -- "conquered", if you will -- by a master
race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this
vantage point whether they will consume the captive earth men
or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain, there is no
stopping them; the ants will soon be here.

And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to
remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful
in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar
caves.

217 JeremyR  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:54:07pm

re: #190 offendi

As a followup to my other post : How would a picture of Obama encased in a jar of urine or elephant dung be treated?

We'd just figure an eleohant was offering his opinion of the guy. After all, they are the symbol of the Republican party.

218 Paul  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:54:12pm

It's difficult to tell which the Left hates more, the First Amendment or the Second Amendment. Either way, both will be under increased attack in the coming years, keep your tongue sharp and your powder dry.

219 Fast Eddie  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:54:17pm

All your hat tips are belong to us!

220 jorline  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:55:22pm

re: #208 Dar ul Harb

Yes, they've decided what Homeland Security really needs is more forms of transportation where large numbers of people are crowded together while traveling at high speed...

Amen..can you imagine the lines? What's next?

I buying stock in Greyhound tomorrow morning.

221 Catttt  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:55:43pm

re: #184 Racer X

Forget the hat tip - someone pass me a beer.

The Full Monty (You Can Leave Your Hat On)

222 mikalm  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:55:52pm

re: #139 Killgore Trout

Fuck that.

Lord, do I loathe that hideous weasel-phrase, "mutual respect." It reeks of group therapy and grant-scamming nonprofitese...

223 mattm  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:57:04pm

What the NYslimes supports, think colleges and university types telling you what you can say on a national scale.

224 infidelia  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:57:26pm

re: #185 TS

"...protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”

The atmosphere will protect itself as long as their is free speech, free press and conscience.

Thank God for the internet.

Really, and who is to protect us against the vicious attacks of the Islamists, leftards and racists? What atmosphere of mutual respect? Respect has to be earned. You don't earn it, you get da bomb in ya turban.

225 jorline  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:57:32pm

re: #209 lawhawk

They still can't break even, and need subsidies, so yes, the Amtrak system needs to be revisited, but since it is like the defense industry where every state stands to benefit - the pork is spread out to practically every district so as to make it impossible to start with a clean slate and provide good intracity high speed rail. Because Amtrak has failed miserably despite the billions spent so far.

I agree lawhawk...billions have been spent to no avail.

226 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:57:40pm

re: #204 Killgore Trout

Joe Cocker rules

Did somebody say "Joe Cocker"?

227 M. Bensson-Levi  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:57:52pm

re: #123 DistantThunder

Thank G-d your kids all right. Puts things in perspective, don't it. Material possessions are just so much junk.

One of my kids took out a telephone pole. Didn't get a scratch, thank G-d.
"Dad, I,m so sorry about the car."
"I don't give a rat's rump about the car. All that matters is that you're OK."

That's how it is, ain't it?

228 Mars Needs Neocons  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:58:00pm

re: #121 ironbill

OK, let me see if I got this correct. The New York Times has written a gazillion editorials declaring that President Bush has trampled on our fundamental freedoms as delineated in the Bill of Rights... But... We should enact laws that restrict our freedom of expression.

Do I have that right, or am I the one who is all f#@^*+ up

welcome to wonderland. The white rabbit will be along momentarilly. However watch your head around the queen.

229 galloping granny  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:58:21pm

re: #209 lawhawk

They still can't break even, and need subsidies, so yes, the Amtrak system needs to be revisited, but since it is like the defense industry where every state stands to benefit - the pork is spread out to practically every district so as to make it impossible to start with a clean slate and provide good intracity high speed rail. Because Amtrak has failed miserably despite the billions spent so far.

One of the reasons that Amtrak can't break even is that they now have pretty inconvenient schedules as a "cost saving measure." Up here in my neck of the woods, you used to be able to hop the train and ride right into Montreal. Not anymore. Have to get off at the border and bus it. And we used to be able to get on the train, go south for the afternoon and catch the train back home for $20 or so. The kiddo and I would hop the train every couple of weeks to go see auntie or go do something fun in the "city." Now the ticket is twice that and you have to buy the thing in advance online - can't buy it on the train and they've closed the stations. So, the train stations up this way are empty and the only time we ride the train is when we need to go to the airport in NYC.

230 right_on_target  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:58:21pm

re: #22 Killian Bundy

FCC Tries to Hush Rush

/and so it starts

It's all about the $$$$$. Advertisers pay for the exposure. People WANT to listen to RUSH , SAVAGE, etc. Air America can't charge $$$$ from advertisers because people turn the dial.
I'm all for letting anyone get on the air, just as long as they have the support from PRIVATE sources and not from a mandate or from my taxes.
Anyway, the PUBLIC funded media is already slanted left.

231 SasquatchOnSteroids  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:58:29pm

re: #206 goddessoftheclassroom

You didn't go to school in Western PA, did you?

No, any particular reason ?

232 right wing zephyr  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:58:51pm

re: #210 buzzsawmonkey

I thought the Cider House ruled.

no dummy. That's Rules, not Rules.

sheesh.

233 galloping granny  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:59:00pm

re: #214 infidelia

I think we discussed this some months ago. I now have a big white diagonal seatbelt scar across my throat so I do know what those things can do. On the other hand it's nice for reminding folks at work that I could have been killed but I came back to work before I was properly healed and they better appreciate me. Doesn't work as well as it did 3 years ago...

You are one very lucky woman.

234 medaura18586  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:59:09pm

re: #127 lostlakehiker

I see your point but it doesn't exactly apply. When deliberate risk decisions are made (such as buying emergency care insurance or spending more on a safe car) I tend to be extremely risk averse and take many extra precautions to be on the safe side. These decisions are made a few times a year at most and I can think rationally over them.

In everyday risk assessment, however, I just tend to think "Meh, I won't get into an accident today so screw the seatbelt."

My assessment of probability is skewed given the time segment in which I make my decisions.

I have never been in an accident though (perhaps it's why I am smug about safety) and I don't like to be a free rider.

Like I said, I would have emergency care insurance, which the insurance company could charge me a different premium for, given my habit of not wearing a seatbelt.

Just because our government doesn't allow the free market to regulate the costs of my choices within my personal range of consequences, I will not be shamed into giving up my freedom of even acting irresponsibly, just because some poor taxpayer schmucks may be forced to split the tab with me.

I don't want it, and I don't condone it, but it is the taxpayers who should rally up to stop the cycle of freeloading and collectivization of costs.

235 jorline  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:59:23pm

re: #212 Racer X

I am doing great!

I just like beer.

LOL...just checking

don't drink and drive though

236 offendi  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 5:59:28pm

re: #213 Son Of The Godfather

Obviously that's BOTH hate-speech AND racism!

Would think you are probably right, it's only acceptable when it involves Jesus or the Catholic Church, I guess. Those damn religious kooks ! Liberals know best.

Would a pic of Obama in a jar of elephant dung be acceptable as political opinion if he loses the election?

237 galloping granny  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:00:22pm

re: #220 jorline

Amen..can you imagine the lines? What's next?

I buying stock in Greyhound tomorrow morning.

No, no, no - they are a worse disaster than Amtrak.

238 jaunte  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:00:45pm

“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”

Waldron fails to define both "vicious" and "attack."

239 Kenneth  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:01:01pm

NYT: all the thoughts that are fit to think

240 Pastorius  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:01:29pm

Nuance is the last refuge of scoundrels.

241 29Victor  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:01:41pm

Why didn't they mention that Jeremy Waldron is a frikin' Kiwi?

And why are they quoting a non-American on limiting American civil rights?

242 Former Belgian  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:01:51pm

re: #56 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Waldron's vision is obscured by the lining of his colon.

Nice euphemism, like "rectocranial inversion", or "anocephaly" :-)

243 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:01:55pm
244 offendi  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:02:11pm

re: #121 ironbill

OK, let me see if I got this correct. The New York Times has written a gazillion editorials declaring that President Bush has trampled on our fundamental freedoms as delineated in the Bill of Rights... But... We should enact laws that restrict our freedom of expression.

Do I have that right, or am I the one who is all f#@^*+ up

By their standards then, Pinchie should be going to Gitmo. Hurrah !

245 Ojoe  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:02:49pm

re: #183 SasquatchOnSteroids

Hi from the sometime alternate Sasquatch

I live in No. Calif

Supposedly where Sasquatch hangs out.

Great Nik

246 Kenneth  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:02:50pm

re: #238 jaunte

“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”

Waldron fails to define both "vicious" and "attack."

And he wrongly assumes the atmosphere includes mutual respect.

247 right wing zephyr  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:03:13pm

re: #243 buzzsawmonkey

A natural mistake, I assure you.


Busted.
how 'bout a hat tip for that, Charles?

248 jorline  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:03:21pm

re: #237 galloping granny

No, no, no - they are a worse disaster than Amtrak.

But Granny...the governments is throwing money at it.

Buy low, then sell...sell...sell

249 tigerwoman  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:03:24pm

Guns kill people, SUV's kill people, and now words kill people.

I disagree wholeheartedly with any hate speech or hate crime legislation. Especially since it seems only white Christians are capable of either.

250 infidelia  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:04:06pm

re: #233 galloping granny

You are one very lucky woman.

I do know that for sure. Fell asleep at the wheel. Didn't hit anyone else, that's the main thing. Wasn't going more than 30, had the belt on, and they still had to dig me out from under the dash. Spent a month in the hospital. One morning I was sitting there with my hard plastic neck brace on and it comes on the news that Chris Reeve had died. There but for 3" of plastic went I.

251 hazzyday  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:04:19pm

Free Speech = winners

Controlled Speech = losers

Some people need to get a thicker skin. That is the problem being brought up a liberal.

252 Former Belgian  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:05:00pm

re: #225 jorline

I agree lawhawk...billions have been spent to no avail. [on Amtrak]

Megan McArdle (the erstwhile "Jane Galt") argued in The Atlantic the other day that the only Amtrak lines that run a profit, and make sense environmentally (FWIW), are those in the Boston-Virginia corridor, and that all the others are a waste of money as well as contributing more CO2 (FWIW) per passenger than cars or air transport.

Her idea was to privatize the former lines and shut down the latter.

253 J.S.  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:05:52pm

re: #70 Kosh's Shadow

I also heard a civil rights lawyer here in Canada say that if these Tribunals continue, unabated, soon we'll be facing all kinds of censorship -- art work, theatre plays, poetry, fictional works, etc -- it'll all be subject to "review." (these Tribunals are headed up by these incredibly dour, stupid, and pathetic bureaucrats...many without even legal backgrounds...they're "civil servants." like some Kafkaesque nightmare)

254 Sunlight  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:06:02pm

re: #201 dgax65

For decades, these worthless, POS liberals have been telling us that, no matter how disgusting, profane or treasonous, all speech was protected under the First Amendment. Now that free speech comes in conflict with their dangerously distorted world-view they are quick to break out the muzzle. Hypocritical doesn't even come close to describing these vermin.

This is perfect example of the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are guided by a set of core beliefs which remain constant, regardless of the situation. Liberals just do whatever the f*ck makes them feel good at that moment in time. Liberals are fundamentally immature and therefore dangerous.

I actually prefer letting the loonies say what they want... as long as it isn't incitement to physically accost or attack someone. It's scary to me to think that we don't know the depths of the creepy thoughts. I'd rather know. Incitement should be prosecuted.

255 infidelia  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:06:08pm

re: #238 jaunte

“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”

Waldron fails to define both "vicious" and "attack."

"Vicious" and "attack" are when we say anything negative about Jeremy or people of whom Jeremy approves. "Protected speech" is when Jeremy and his little friends indulge in vicious attacks against us.

256 whatdafuq  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:06:25pm

"Mr. Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections 'in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.'"

And if someone is inspired by words to commit acts of mass murder
and terrorism then, well they're just misunderstanding the words which
are really peaceful and meant for introspection and battling our inner
demons. It's not those peaceful words really, you just don't understand
the nuance.

Unless of course you say that the words can inspire acts of mass murder
and terrorism. Then your words about those words that inspire mass
murder and terrorism are hateful. And you must be punished.

Don't draw attention to the words that inspired these misunderstanders
of the words because then you're hateful. And you must be punished.

The problem is that these sorts of jackasses is that their secular
dogma states that the dominant culture as somehow oppressive
regardless of what it does and there are selected classes who are not
part of the dominant culture (or, have been able to declare some
exclusive difference from the rest) who must be victimized by this
dominant culture. The penance for being part of the dominant
culture, then, is to establish double standards-- certain behavior is
OK for victimized class, not OK for dominant culture.

How about a separation of _that_ "church" and state....

257 offendi  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:07:12pm

If I interpret it correctly the New York Times is basically saying that they want to able to charge in euros for the paper. Probably the only way to stop their decline.

258 infidelia  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:07:12pm

re: #253 J.S.

I also heard a civil rights lawyer here in Canada say that if these Tribunals continue, unabated, soon we'll be facing all kinds of censorship -- art work, theatre plays, poetry, fictional works, etc -- it'll all be subject to "review." (these Tribunals are headed up by these incredibly dour, stupid, and pathetic bureaucrats...many without even legal backgrounds...they're "civil servants." like some Kafkaesque nightmare)

That would seem to be the way the parade is headed. And we are bringing up the rear.

259 jaunte  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:07:44pm

Academics don't like democracy because it's noisy and rude.

260 SasquatchOnSteroids  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:08:35pm

re: #245 Ojoe

Hi from the sometime alternate Sasquatch

I live in No. Calif

Supposedly where Sasquatch hangs out.

Great Nik

I live in East California (formerly known as MD).
It's a jungle here. I fit right in.
Thanks.

261 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:08:35pm
262 ccrnyc  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:10:10pm

As soon as I read "New York Times" I didn't bother to RTA because I knew it was just going to be utter garbage and by the comments I see, I was right.

263 nyc redneck  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:10:10pm

it seems like free speech has been curtailed in europe in direct proportion to islamic encroachment.
is that what is motivating these writers here. fear of jihadi backlash if islam is criticized.
how pathetic that these people would preemptively bow to their future islamic overlords.
some things are truly worth fighting for even if the enemy is offended. freedom of speech can not be curtailed so some cowards can sleep more easily, hoping nothing bad will happen in their lifetimes.

264 SasquatchOnSteroids  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:10:18pm

re: #206 goddessoftheclassroom

You didn't go to school in Western PA, did you?

LOL. I'm a bit slow tonight. Sorry for the grammar.

265 lawhawk  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:10:24pm

re: #192 paxnhymn

It is an ego thing, or if you happen to have a blog, it can and will result in a traffic surge. From LGF, I call it a footballing. From instapundit, it's an instalanche. Etc.

266 irongrampa  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:10:39pm

re: #29 goddessoftheclassroom

I disagree about flag burning.

Burning the flag is in NO WAY an expression of free speech--it's wilful and malicious desecration of our national symbol, and by extension, a denial of the ideals this country was founded on.

267 infidelia  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:10:41pm

re: #254 Sunlight

I actually prefer letting the loonies say what they want... as long as it isn't incitement to physically accost or attack someone. It's scary to me to think that we don't know the depths of the creepy thoughts. I'd rather know. Incitement should be prosecuted.

The Rev. Wright et al have been a wake up call of epic proportions. If there was censorship he'd still be ranting that stuff, he'd just do it in private without the camera running. Probably to a room full of NOI goons.

268 JeremyR  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:11:01pm

re: #245 Ojoe

Hi from the sometime alternate Sasquatch

I live in No. Calif

Supposedly where Sasquatch hangs out.

Great Nik

Do you know how Sasquatch got his name? Its the sound a tent makes when he steps on it.

269 infidelia  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:12:19pm

re: #260 SasquatchOnSteroids

I live in East California (formerly known as MD).
It's a jungle here. I fit right in.
Thanks.

With the number of drug enforcement choppers flying over northern Cal looking for weed patches you'd think someone would have spotted Big Foot by now.

270 Edouard  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:12:31pm

The only speech that should ever be illegal is that which causes a legal finding of harm, such as libel or slander. In other words, I don't have the right to publicly falsely allege that a business competitor is a child molester, with the direct result being the destruction of the competitor's business. That is legal harm. Simply speaking in such a way that others merely take offense should never, in a million years, be subject to government restriction.

Canadians should find the Ezra Levant & Mark Steyn trials beyond embarrassing -- positively humiliating for their country is more like it. I am shocked that a wave of Canadian denunciation has not yet arisen (although perhaps I shouldn't be shocked that some people can't be bothered to stand in defense of what ought to be their primary right as human beings who were born with tongues).

271 Sunlight  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:13:11pm

re: #254 Sunlight

I actually prefer letting the loonies say what they want... as long as it isn't incitement to physically accost or attack someone. It's scary to me to think that we don't know the depths of the creepy thoughts. I'd rather know. Incitement should be prosecuted.

For example, the horrid ooze that came out during the white power discussions with the Euros were mind changing. I lived for several years in Europe and had some suspicions, but the words on LGF were stark. I don't want "hate speech" rules or laws to interfere with knowing what's what.

272 medaura18586  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:13:37pm

re: #186 paxnhymn

very good. I had looked in on your site, and had noticed you posing you ideas as a "test". I always thought they were rather snarky. But in retrospect, when you get past the snarkyness of youth (I have a daughter your age) you thought processes are actually quite fluid and make sense of someone twice your age, so I think I like you more. I like you answer on Medicare as well, because most of the time people spew about not wanting to be "on the dole" until in comes their turn. Good honest answer. Now we just need to work on your theology and you could be someone to lead these young people.

Thanks,
I appreciate it, though it comes off as slightly condescending.

273 bonnieblue  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:13:55pm

One question, Will the NYT be printing favorable opinions of these new laws when they are in the docket? Somehow I think not.

Live Free or Die!
Sic semper tyrannis!

274 jaunte  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:16:05pm

Waldron is a fan of "justice" via the Kyoto accords, according to this review of a Cass Sunstein book, Worst-Case Scenarios:

"Justice is out of fashion among rational choice theorists, and it is a pity that Worst-Case Scenarios does not fly in the face of fashion in a more determined way. It would have been a better book had it spent more time on the issues of distributive and corrective justice that attend the prevention of catastrophic harm."

He also uses quite a lot of language to imply that being on guard against an improbable but disastrous occurrence will make you crazy paranoid. Cheney makes an appearance, as an illustration of the point.

275 JeremyR  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:16:09pm

re: #266 irongrampa

I disagree about flag burning.

Burning the flag is in NO WAY an expression of free speech--it's wilful and malicious desecration of our national symbol, and by extension, a denial of the ideals this country was founded on.

I have no problem with them burning the flag as long as they wrap themselves in it and use extra gasoline.

276 canadianally  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:16:56pm

The Steyn trial is taking place less than 4 blocks from where I live, and I am appalled at the lack of local interest here in the case. (Well, Steyn is a conservative, so who cares, right?) Then one of the largest rags in America essentially argues the same case in its pages. Dark days are ahead, I believe. Equally appalling is that my government (a Conservative one at that) has not come out vociferously and unequivocally on the side of Steyn and Maclean's. Growl. Well, I do know at least half a dozen MPs know about it because I have taken the liberty to email them case articles, etc. So, they may yet muster a political counter-attack, depending on the "verdict".

(To boil the case down to a meaningless soundbite, it is the Canadian equivalent to the Fairness Doctrine, applied to the print medium.)

277 jaunte  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:16:59pm

re: #274 jaunte

A link would be nice:
[Link: www.lrb.co.uk...]

278 Former Belgian  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:17:23pm

re: #164 ironbill

The New York Times offends me. I want it declared as a purveyor of hate speech and shut down.

In fact, if they like Canada so much, that country has (or used to have) something called the "False News Statute". Various Shoah deniers have been convicted under it. (This is about knowingly and willfully publishing "news" that one knows to be false.)

And these looney-leftists always forget that "hate speech" laws, the moment they lose power, will boomerang against them...

True free speech protects both some wannabe artist's right to make an image of Bush in pig dung and my right to go tell the "artist" to his face that he's a no-talent moronic *sshole and his "art" the public masturbation of the artistically impotent.

279 StinkHammer  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:19:59pm

re: #145 rorschach

I don't believe there is a verdict yet in the Steyn/Kangaroo Court debaucle. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

If the "court" finds Steyn and MacLeans innocent so that they can't appeal to a real court, I'd like to see MacLeans (sp?) put their resources behind the poor minister who was recently convicted of anti-gay hate speech, and help him appeal.

I heard Steyn say that he actually hopes the "court" finds against him and MacLean's so that they can in turn appeal to a real court, which would allow some legal sunshine to disinfect the legality of the "hate codes" legislation, thereby cleansing the system.

280 Former Belgian  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:20:58pm

re: #259 jaunte

Academics don't like democracy because it's noisy and rude.

The "anoinre: #271 Sunlight

For example, the horrid ooze that came out during the white power discussions with the Euros were mind changing. I lived for several years in Europe and had some suspicions, but the words on LGF were stark. I don't want "hate speech" rules or laws to interfere with knowing what's what.

Good point. This is one reason why I opposed outlawing neo-Nazi parties --- because I'd rather see the POSes openly than being driven underground in a respectable party and then subverting that from within.

281 Goneskiing  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:21:16pm

We already have some limits on free speech (properly, I think). You know, can't yell fire in a theater etc. And you can get in some trouble if someone can prove you libeled/slandered them, can't you?

We've nailed it better than anybody, and this guy's idea would certainly be no improvement.

282 canadianally  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:21:50pm

re: #270 Edouard

The only speech that should ever be illegal is that which causes a legal finding of harm, such as libel or slander. In other words, I don't have the right to publicly falsely allege that a business competitor is a child molester, with the direct result being the destruction of the competitor's business. That is legal harm. Simply speaking in such a way that others merely take offense should never, in a million years, be subject to government restriction.

Canadians should find the Ezra Levant & Mark Steyn trials beyond embarrassing -- positively humiliating for their country is more like it. I am shocked that a wave of Canadian denunciation has not yet arisen (although perhaps I shouldn't be shocked that some people can't be bothered to stand in defense of what ought to be their primary right as human beings who were born with tongues).


My fellow citizens, for the most part, don't even know that this monumental case is occurring.

283 darren  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:22:09pm

The article stated:

The First Amendment is not, of course, absolute. The Supreme Court has said that the government may ban fighting words or threats. Punishments may be enhanced for violent crimes prompted by racial hatred. And private institutions, including universities and employers, are not subject to the First Amendment, which restricts only government activities.

I disagree with this. Boundaries on freedom of speech like "fighting words" or threats are not contradictions to freedom of speech; they make up the definition. Like all other rights (your life, property, etc), the right to speak or write reaches only to the point where you violate someone else's rights. Otherwise, the concept of "right" would have no meaning. Of what use is a right when nobody else has it? To put it another way: Rights do not overlap. As for some of the points it brought up:

1.) "Fighting words" (I'm leaving that phrase alone for now) and threats are wrong because they are violations of another person's right to life, liberty, and property. If you tell someone "I'm going to kill you," you are initiating force against them.

2.) When a private institution punishes an individual for saying something or prevents an individual from using their private property, they're not violating the First Amendment or even the principle behind the First Amendment. Again, rights do not overlap. The First Amendment says that the government can't stop you, but private institutions have the right to do what they want *with their own property.* Again, rights do not overlap.

I think it's a mistake to equate "freedom" with "anarchy," and this NY Times article is proof.

284 Slumbering Behemoth  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:22:12pm
“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,”

I get the distinct impression that there are a great many things that are not clear to you, Mr. Waldron.

*spit*

dumbass

285 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:22:17pm
286 Summer  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:24:52pm

I agree with the part in the article which says that it is hard to criticize Israel, Austria, Germany and South Africa for some limits on speech, given their histories. This makes absolute sense. That's a given, and I doubt anyone here would go around criticizing them for their choice in that matter.

However, the rest of the article is complete and utter bullshit and worth less than a bucket of piss with a crucifix inside it.

I bet if the NYT found out that this might be construed as legally offensive with such laws they wish to see passed, they would change their tune double-quick. Underlying message: let's not offend Muslims, but we wouldn't ever dare think somebody is being serious if they were Christian and were offended by, say, "Piss Christ". I bet the NYT would consider such people to be "extremist fundamentalist Christians", whereas Muslims are simply "oppressed minorities we need to cooperate with in the spirit of religious harmony".

Basically, The New York Times is full of shit.

287 paxnhymn  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:32:03pm

re: #272 medaura18586

Thanks,
I appreciate it, though it comes off as slightly condescending.


I think we both probably tend to be so point well taken.

288 brogers  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:32:49pm

I must've missed that part of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to "Not be offended." Maybe it's in the omnipotent Elastic Clause.

Throw out real consitutional rights and create new ones. CHANGE!

289 Intrepid  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:33:01pm

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and all the other founding fathers are now rolling over in their graves.

Wish they'd pop on out of 'em and whip these idiots' butts for us. Seems the NYT has forgotten what was sacrificed so they could print that unmitigated crap in their bargain-basement rag.

290 Da_Beerfreak  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:33:56pm

re: #69 Mars Needs Neocons

We're in a war of ideas and ideals, and they wish to take away the ammo.

This war of ideals just took another step towards real civil war.
There's a damn good reason why the First and Second Amendments are number 1 and 2 in the Bill of Rights!

It's not if there will be war, but when.

291 Drained Brain  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:34:12pm

As the line above the headline notes, the U.S. is the "exception."

I'm thankful to live in such an "exception."

292 Inquisitive  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:34:41pm

re: #266 irongrampa

I disagree about flag burning.

Burning the flag is in NO WAY an expression of free speech--it's wilful and malicious desecration of our national symbol, and by extension, a denial of the ideals this country was founded on.

I agree--burning flag is not free speech, but when I think of speech I think of using words, either spoken or printed. Burning flag definitely does not fall is either category so should not be included under the term of free speech.

293 brownmear  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:35:28pm

Hat tip.

I know this is a sore subject, but when do I get it?

I was the first to point out the problems with the loop in Longview TX. No one else has even discussed the problem. Now that it has a large bump and had to be cut down to one lane every one is talking about it!

How many tens of people have to be discomforted before you recognize the issue?

294 looking closely  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:38:28pm

Free speech gives people the right to question it.

It also gives me the right to say that the New York Times stinks, and is disgracing its own freedom of the press by calling into question the first amendment here.

295 jaunte  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:38:50pm

re: #293 brownmear

Just go round through Carthage and Henderson, no worries.

296 brownmear  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:40:35pm

Once again my post comes at the end of a dead post.

DOA. Much like Reagan's budget proposals.

297 jc59  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:41:08pm

Best State Motto (New Hampshire):

"Live Free Or Die."

298 looking closely  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:41:35pm

For the nth time, by defintion, freedom of speech exists SOLELY to protect unpopular, controversial, or offensive speech.

Speech that doesn't offend or bother anyone doesn't need legal protection.

It is quite LITERALLY the right to be offensive.

299 Shr_Nfr  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:42:24pm

re: #181 jorline

Lets see: 14,900 mn bucks for 28 mn riders = $532 a rider. Buy them a first class ticket on an airline and ship them that way, it will be cheaper and one heck of a lot faster. At $5/gallon gas that is 100 gallons. At 20 mpg = 2000 miles. I don't know about what the rest of you drive but my 10-20 year old beaters get 30+ on the highway. Sounds like only a deal Congress could conceive of.

But of course we have the 1,500 mn buck hooha for the DC Metro. A slight conflict of interest imo.

Sounds like money as well spent as money that was spent on the "Big Pig" in Boston.

300 J.S.  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:43:57pm

re: #270 Edouard

hmmm....let me see....Ok, I've noticed (having been born and raised in the U.S.) that there's a whole 'nother attitude about "rights" here in Canada. For a number of years I experienced real problems -- in terms of attempting to understand Canadian attitudes...(it's still a problem at times -- I mean you look at them -- hey, they look like Americans, they dress like Americans, they speak English (most do, anyway, outside of Quebec) -- so you can be easily fooled (deceived) into believing they're also like Americans (or Canadians share the same values)...I've come to the conclusion that there are many shared values, but there are also these huge departures...not all of which I can even articulate...One of these differences is in what I'd term "political responses to outrages." First Canadians don't get easily outraged (much, much more placid). Second, they won't rush out into the streets carrying signs and placards and protesting (typically they'll do things -- behind the scenes -- so as not to draw attention to themselves or they want to be "discreet." They don't like "rocking the boat" or "making waves." Sometimes this is extremely frustrating...but they won't be rushed...so you have to quietly work on the "problem"...I half expect an announcement coming from Parliament sometime soon about these Tribunals...it's also, imo, far more autocratic here...) Anyway, give it time...I believe the situation will right itself...

301 Sunlight  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:47:36pm

re: #280 Former Belgian

Good point. This is one reason why I opposed outlawing neo-Nazi parties --- because I'd rather see the POSes openly than being driven underground in a respectable party and then subverting that from within.

Hmmm. Well, if they don't interfere with anyone's ability to live in their cities without being attacked or harassed on the street..... I think that is a high hurdle for the neo-Nazis. They so far don't have that good of a track record. Incitement should be prosecuted.

302 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:51:42pm
303 mrtunes  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:51:58pm

I know this isn't an opinion piece, but why does it smell like a trial balloon? "Hey, maybe we can import some of that Canadian speech code stuff. It worked for them."

The choice of "news" pieces is fair game in assessing a newspaper's overall mind set. This is a red flag for sure.

304 kansas  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:52:13pm

You have the right to remain silent. Kind of takes on a new meaning.

305 Shr_Nfr  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:55:25pm

re: #298 looking closely

I suggest Finn's course at the Teaching Company for those who care to go into some of the aspects of the Bill of Rights. There are a number of them that he specifically does not deal with such as the second amendment. But the overview on the entire question of constitutionality in the context of the Bill of Rights is dealt with quite nicely. It is currently on sale and no I do not work for them. [Link: www.teach12.com...] He also has a 2 volume tome that he has written with some other folks that is a good read for the non-lawyer who is willing to wade. [Link: www.amazon.com...] and [Link: www.amazon.com...] you may be able to pick up the books cheaper in used form at [Link: www.abe.com...] which is an association of used book sellers. Quite useful for OOP and so forth. The sellers often list the same book on both ABE and Amazon, if so, the ABE price is usually slightly less, since they do not have the Amazon tithe on their head.

306 Shr_Nfr  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 6:58:43pm

re: #304 kansas

I never speak when I am aiming at my target, it detracts me from my concentration on the front sight. Actions speak louder than words sometimes.

307 joan  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:02:39pm

Only the putative Constitutional right to privacy, the adumbrations of that right, are inviolate. There are only two absolutes: the Constitution is a living document, organic, growing and evoloving in marvelous leftwinged splendor; and, abortion is the only right guaranteed as an absolute right. Not speech, religion, the right to bear arms, to assemble, to petition the government, pick your freedom and kiss it goodbye.

308 profitsbeard  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:03:24pm

Fuck them (Waldron, Lewis, et al) and the gelded mule they rode in on.

Free speech or State Speech?

I know which I choose.

Screw those who would sell us all out for our own good.

Judasocrats.

309 Sharmuta  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:05:28pm

I'm just bitterly clinging to my First Amendment.

310 Who Watches the Watchmen?  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:06:15pm

Guns: buy 'em cheap, bury 'em deep. And keep your powder dry.

311 scannit  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:07:24pm

Something like this won't bother the ROP. The radical Imams aren't spewing hate speech, they're just preaching what's in their holy book. You can't compare calling Muhammad a pedophile, with calling joooos pigs and monkeys that need to be eliminated. One is protected, the other is hate speech.

I believe this occurred in Sweden (or some other northern EU member) a few years ago. Someone was found quilty of hate speech because they spoke out against the ROP.. But when they tried to turn the tables and bring the local Imam to court on the same charges, he was found not guilty because he was "just preaching what was in their Quran". Freedom of religion...

Just watch, they will continuously push to protect freedom of religion while calling to limit freedom of speech... That combo will always work in their favor.

312 Shr_Nfr  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:07:40pm

re: #307 joan

"Roe v Wade is a decision on a collision course with itself" - Sandra Day O'Connor

313 Shr_Nfr  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:09:00pm

re: #310 Who Watches the Watchmen?

Should I modify my clay thrower to throw waffles?

314 maddogg  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:09:50pm

I'm telling you folks, it will come a time, in the near future that we're going to have to take up arms in order to take this country back from the communists, socialists, and Islamists. Creeping incremental-ism is the weapon of the enemies of America. And they never rest.

# 10, Thanos is correct, this is a trial balloon.

315 docremulac  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:11:06pm

Progressives are fascists scum. The nazis of the new century.

316 curt9988  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:11:36pm

No, seriously. This IS a joke, right?

317 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:12:57pm
318 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:14:15pm
319 Monroe  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:15:30pm

This is a very big deal. Huge!

There is no right not to be offended.

This crap from the NYT is dangerous.

320 golly_wog  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:21:50pm

re: #67 buzzsawmonkey

The notion that "hate" is a free-standing entity that can be outlawed is fundamentally evil. Everyone has, or should have, the freedom to hate if they wish, and to hate whatever they wish. What they do not have the right to do is to harm others physically in service of that hate.

Attempting to expunge part of human nature is of itself a vicious and unnatural thing. All that the power of the state can legitimately do is demand that actions in service of that baser instinct not be given free rein. Anything beyond that gets into regulation of thought.


This one comment should have ended the thread, and sent all dissent contemplating their navels. Buzzsawmonkey you are the best, and the funniest on less somber topics. I scroll for you. I'm sending the thread, and your comment to every tinfoil chapeau that I spare with.

321 unclassifiable  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:23:37pm

The problem is that there is a great confusion between free speech and effective speech.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. It does not garantee that if person A has a loudspeaker for their speech that everyone should have one.

And the great big lie that is being drummed into our "utes" through a major percentage of the wonderful public education indoctrination system is that there is no free speech unless everyone's speech is effective.

Balderdash of course. The marketplace of ideals is not some dreamy loopy ethereal entity. It is in fact the exercise of the very necessary discourse that not only promotes the free exchange of ideas but the free judgment thereof by each and every individual in this republic -- including the right to ignore speech.

It is only through such judgments that these ideas are tested and advanced or discarded after rigorous debate. What 'the world' proposes is nothing less than the U.S. dismantling the very essence that birthed this great republic.

322 Spiny Norman  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:24:04pm

re: #67 buzzsawmonkey

The notion that "hate" is a free-standing entity that can be outlawed is fundamentally evil. Everyone has, or should have, the freedom to hate if they wish, and to hate whatever they wish. What they do not have the right to do is to harm others physically in service of that hate.

Attempting to expunge part of human nature is of itself a vicious and unnatural thing. All that the power of the state can legitimately do is demand that actions in service of that baser instinct not be given free rein. Anything beyond that gets into regulation of thought.

But has been at the heart of Socialist philosophy from the very beginning: trying to "perfect" man through social engineering. One of the reasons Socialists were so smitten with eugenics.

323 Spiny Norman  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:26:39pm

re: #319 Monroe

This is a very big deal. Huge!

There is no right not to be offended.

This crap from the NYT is dangerous.

Sure there is. It's in "Amendment Y". It's there in the Constitution, but only ACLU lawyers and sympathetic judges can see it.

324 l1e9e6e1  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:32:08pm

re: #307 joan

No Joan, you have other rights
you have the right to burn the flag
you have the right not to say the pledge of allegience
you have the right to be offended...but only by christians, jews or conservatives
you have the right not to identify yourself to the police if you`re in this country illegaly
and a whole bunch of other rights but I`m going to stop and go throw up.

325 Ojoe  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:32:13pm

re: #269 infidelia

Sasquatch probably works for "C.A.M.P."

(Campaign Against Marijuana Planting)

He doesn't want those growers messing up his turf.

IMHO.

326 EE  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:44:11pm

The New York Times seems willing to give up their liberal principles and all other principles, including the individual's right of freedom of speech, in order to appease islamofascism's demands for dhimmi behavior from kafirs. Their cowardice trumps all principles and all rights, even the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. They are not real liberals; just cowards.

327 jsk1121  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:45:37pm

"If you will not stand for speech that offends, you are not for free speech at all." ~ Some guy infinitely wiser than this so-called 'legal expert'

328 deportman  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:53:12pm

It was only a matter of time. After years of attacking and subverting the Second Amendment, they finally figured out that by distroying the First Amendment that they can finally push their fascist agenda.

329 DistantThunder  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:54:37pm

re: #227 M. Bensson-Levi


Thank G-d your kids all right. Puts things in perspective, don't it. Material possessions are just so much junk.

One of my kids took out a telephone pole. Didn't get a scratch, thank G-d.
"Dad, I,m so sorry about the car."
"I don't give a rat's rump about the car. All that matters is that you're OK."

That's how it is, ain't it?

Indeed. It's amazing that most kids live to adulthood anyway.

330 hrhamilton  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 7:56:10pm

Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.

Some prominent Americans used to shoot people that tried to make them reconsider their position on free speech.

I'll settle for telling them that they can have my free speech when they can pry it from my cold, dead hands. (Just to mix my metaphors, and keep these idiots guessing).

331 DesScorp  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 8:11:36pm

Liberalism, simply put, is an enemy of liberty.

332 Wm T Sherman  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 8:16:13pm
In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.

Well see, "incitement" means "calling for imminent violence." It does not mean behaving in an insulting but legal way, and having somebody decide that you need to be killed for that.

There is already an 'insanity defense' used in an attempt to limit penalties for actual violence including murder; recent events suggest that it is over-used. Here we have a suggestion for something strangely complimentary: don't behave in a way that will make some lunatic want to kill you, or we'll go easy on the lunatic, and prosecute you instead.

How about, instead of sparing penalties based on an insanity plea, we imprison or execute an insane murderer, but with no hard feelings

333 mamashawna  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 8:19:43pm

re: #67 buzzsawmonkey

The notion that "hate" is a free-standing entity that can be outlawed is fundamentally evil. Everyone has, or should have, the freedom to hate if they wish, and to hate whatever they wish. What they do not have the right to do is to harm others physically in service of that hate.

Attempting to expunge part of human nature is of itself a vicious and unnatural thing. All that the power of the state can legitimately do is demand that actions in service of that baser instinct not be given free rein. Anything beyond that gets into regulation of thought.

That quote right there inspired me to start ANOTHER draft file in my email on the first amendment. I have many 'drafts' that I save on different subjects (Globull warming, 2nd Amendment. Reagan quotes, etc), where I add different quotes as I find them (many from LGF). I read these from time to time to keep my points sharp when arguing/educating either my liberal friends, or uninformed/apathetic friends.

Anyway, THANK YOU, Buzzsaw....that was awesome!

334 Carridine  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 8:20:16pm

re: #332 Wm T Sherman

Exactly, Tecumseh!

"Gracious God, THAT was a stupid remark, and-"

BLAM!

/UNCONSTITUTIONAL action, Constitutionally protected speech!
Speech control is THOUGHT control.

335 yesandno  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 8:20:40pm

Doubt Jeremy is an American. Born in New Zealand. Taught at Euro=weeny schools. And I don't know what a "legal philosopher"...is that someone in solitary confinement using law books to try and get out of jail. Now that is a legal philosopher I can understand.

WE ARE NOT EUROPE. Time for the pitchforks, folks. These folks will PC us to death.

Besides, Marc Steyn got in trouble for QUOTING an Imam from oversees. The part that everyone found offensive...the reference to Muslims "reproducing like mosquitoes"...wasn't Marks own quote...he was referencing a quote a Muslim made indicating that they would out-produce the West by all the births.

Those who would deny Mark Steyn and a magazine to quote someone from the Muslim community and then charge them with hate speech against the Muslim community is pure convoluted thought. It isn't logical at all.

The people wanting to restrict free speech want to restrict MY free speech, not THEIRS..........

Remember the film about killing George Bush......was anyone arguing against the free speech of the freaks that produced that? That should be against the law already as "INCITING VIOLENCE".....


crickets.............

336 MES41067  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 8:23:23pm

Is it just me or did the fn world just get a lobotomy with a stupid pill suppository up the ass.

337 Carridine  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 8:26:02pm

re: #336 MES41067

"Yessir, THESE may look like knitting needles, but they do a FINE JOB of lobotomizing folks, by simply inserting them at the side of the eye socket... unh!... thusly, very little pain I might add... and pushing left and right.... duhh...

... uh, wow! I wanna vote Obama!"

338 MES41067  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 8:28:39pm

re: #337 Carridine

"Yessir, THESE may look like knitting needles, but they do a FINE JOB of lobotomizing folks, by simply inserting them at the side of the eye socket... unh!... thusly, very little pain I might add... and pushing left and right.... duhh...

... uh, wow! I wanna vote Obama!"

Nice lol.

339 desertdweller  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 8:31:37pm

This whole concept is so bass ackwards my head is spinning.

Mark Steyn states some facts in a book and offends someone to the point of violence. He's hauled in front of a tribunal and chances are near 100% he'll be "convicted" of "hate speech."

Tribunals are now mandating politically correct speech? Can I start being offended by the tribunal and bring them up on charges? Good for the gander, say?

Just wait until one of the 20 or so readers of the NYT is offended by one of their editorials. (Hell, that'll never happen). And files a complaint to the "Tribunal on Thought and Word Control."

The rabbit hole is so deep, so deep.

340 Idle Drifter  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 8:34:35pm

Soon it will be offensive/hate speech to sing the National Anthem. Fly the American Flag in public will be considered a symbol of American Imperialism. Of course, the day that happens there will be a lot of clicking in the streets followed by the public redress of American Liberties.

341 anubis_soundwave  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 8:37:04pm

Ultimately [I know I'm dead late, as usual] it's all about the right to speak our minds...and be wrong.

Example: my brother (I adore him, in spite of the fact that he anticipates an Obama presidency) wants to continually question the same points that I've been studying here and from other sources for SIX TO SEVEN YEARS. All while I'm trying to make my salmon fettucine alfredo(much like Senator Obama wanted to eat his waffle :)).

He'd made a comment based on what was babbled on the news; I scoffed at it (as it was sensationalist nonsense)--and the "please, PLEASE understand that you're wrong" battle began.

He'd wondered for weeks where I was getting my news; when I finally explained (hotly) that I got it off various internet sites, he dismissed it as wrong. Somehow--even though I tried to explain that the majority of news sources were slanted liberal (left)--he got the impression that the internet breeds misinformation, while TV/cable is right: simply because I agree (based on critical analysis) with LGF versus TV/cable news.

The problem with me when it comes to my brother: from my perspective, it takes him way too long to GET TO THE POINT. I get like this when I'm writing posts (such as this one). He's like this when talking IRL.

He comes from the perspective of "we have a lot of problems @ home--why are we wasting our time minding other countries' business?"--a Jacksonian sentiment that for the most part, I actually agree with.

= = =

If my brother opts to search my limited posting history, I'll post a thought.

A puny, non-Hugo hurricane blew through Charleston a few years ago. One of our local Live Five news (Charleston, SC CBS affiliate) weathermen picked up a piece of palmetto tree and asserted that the hurricane was really tearing through the Lowcountry. My mom scoffed at this, noting that pieces of palmetto trees ALWAYS fall off, and that he was full of crap. (You almost have to be there when she makes fun of TV in general.)

[Hurricane Hugo happened in 1989. Category 5. We evacuated when they asked--and it seemed like we'd be flooded at the place they told us to go for shelter. It took the federal government several days to bring help. Thankfully, my mom was raised by my late great-grandmother, and knew how to create outdoor stoves to cook. FEMA...was created after that.]

From this and other weird oddities I've seen in the news (papers and TV) , I've rationalized that if our local news can exaggerate a hurricane's effect on palmetto trees (for ratings), then national news outlets will do the same thing, for the same reason--on a larger, multibillion-dollar scale.

The only difference between TV and the internet is that we know to be critical of internet news to start; the onus is on the internet to bring the truth. TV/cable/paper news hasn't received the same level of scrutiny.

= = =

In any case, I emailed him a link to LGF. I expect him to disagree with a lot of posters here--I explained that the site "slanted right". But I know he'll at least see "where I'm coming from"--that way, he can say I'm "naive" from an informed context.

Aside from that, I will let him be wrong. That's what free speech is all about (to relate this to the topic)--and I wouldn't CHANGE anything until I know what needs to be fixed. I sincerely HOPE that he will understand this about America--our home; and BELIEVE IN God's ability to move hearts regardless of who's elected President.

I'm confident that posters here will engage him in spirited discussion if he ever opts to register and post. (or maybe he'll be "scared straight" when he sees DU or The Daily Kos. Brrr...so much hate.)

= = =

On a tangent: we've got to take back the words "change", "hope" and "believe". These are good words that are being made meaningless (IMO).

342 z9z99  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 8:41:29pm

There are several issues raised regarding freedom of speech:

1.) The issue is really one of whether the state may, by use of force, protect subjective feelings. The state may not legitimately do this, because it cannot practically do it. Subjective feelings, being subjective, are unpredictable, unknowable, and subject to claimed injury for ulterior purposes. So the state doesn't protect subjective feelings, it prohibits certain disfavored views on the pretext of protecting feelings.

2.) The freedom of speech, like the right to privacy has a purpose. Human progress is possible solely because humans can communicate. Communication is necessary to organize, to plan and maintain enterprises. It is necessary to promulgate and refine theories, to develop societal principles and in general to advance the public good. Speech is indispensible to communication, and it is not always possible to divorce worthy ideas from offensive comment.

3.) "Incitement" is an intellectually lazy way of associating speech with some undesirable viewpoint, by promulgating the fallacy that hearing mere words somehow relieves one of responsibility for his choices and conduct. The exhortation of another is not a defense to a crime.

4.) The danger in restricting speech is that it inevitable resticts ideas. Very few ideas, even "hateful" or repugnant ones can be isolated from broader concepts, which then become proscribed as well. Thus, the case in Canada where a Human Rights Commisssion, under authority of a law promulgated to protect equal rights in housing, was used to prohibit a minister from saying anything "disparaging" about a university professor. Laws against offensive speech take on the character of ex-post facto laws because ideas develop and evolve, and defining bounds with reference to the subjective and whimsical feelings of some unknown third party makes it impossible to know what thoughts the state will allow you to express.

5.) Infringements on speech are infringements on basic human dignity. Call a man a name and his dignity stays intact, while yours may be in question, but prevent a man from speaking his conscience and you have deprived him of one of the more meaningful attributes of being human.

6.) Etc.

343 l1e9e6e1  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 8:43:33pm

...

344 Wm T Sherman  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 8:55:00pm

I actually think the Canadian human rights councils will be looked back upon as a high water mark of PC insanity.

They are hoist on their own petard.

345 edr  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 8:59:26pm

Hmmmm.

Funny thing.

To me everything in the New York Times qualifies as "hate speech".

So that means we can shut it down and arrest everyone that works there right?

346 anubis_soundwave  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 9:15:50pm

re: #322 Spiny Norman

But has been at the heart of Socialist philosophy from the very beginning: trying to "perfect" man through social engineering. One of the reasons Socialists were so smitten with eugenics.

Yet you can't improve man through law/government. Individuals have to reason with other individuals.

Ah, but that's more complicated work, with little material reward--and each person has enough problems on their own plate.

I see a parallel with our current ME presence. "Why are we in Iraq when we have real problems at home?" is a reason to leave Iraq NOW. It's not our problem--let them deal with it.

Yet opposite reasoning is applied domestically: we need to have the government step in and bail individuals/corporations out NOW. I suppose this is because it's IN AMERICA.

In either case, I think our sense of responsibility is skewed, but I can't articulate it properly.

Maybe like this: we need to do what's right for ourselves and for others--domestically and internationally.

In my mind, the run-up to the Iraq war was wall-to-wall debate. Pros and cons were argued to death. In the end, the President--as commander-in-chief--made the decision to strike Iraq after weighing all options. I could not presume otherwise.

To leave the job undone now after the decision was made in March 2003 (five years after the debate ended) is Vietnam-level stupid. Even presuming the worst about the President's decision, it's too late to back out. If we leave, we'll only have to go back to the place we just left--or curl in a collective fetal position, advertising weakness to our enemies. I'd rather stay until the job's done. I accept that it will be a long time.

We leave now (as we did during Vietnam), and millions die. Not our problem, say various anti-war people; we've spent too much blood and treasure already. But what are we supposed to do? Nothing overseas?

Strengthen our borders and withdraw from the world except our allies, they say. I'd like nothing more than to do that. As this is the actual Earth we're on, though, we CAN'T DO THAT. It will not happen.

That's one reason I can't vote for Obama. I suspect that based on his 50-second McCain campaign ad that he wants to gut NASA. NASA is the US' only way off this planet--we can exploit, terraform and colonize the moon with impunity. Only with America safely on the moon can we leave the rest of the world to its own devices. (and that's only if we keep "weaponizing" space. [what's that!? a new word?])

347 Merovign  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 9:19:18pm

You first, NYT, you first.

Maybe after we run your sorry butts off a pier for revealing critical wartime intelligence information.

The left has never, EVER been interested in freedom, only power. They just delude themselves into thinking they will be the ones who have the power, as opposed to just more "workers" to grind up in the mills of state socialism.

348 Ban Draoi  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 10:02:26pm

re: #23 buzzsawmonkey

And not just cheap talk but cheap art.

Some idiot college up north came under fire for using taxpayers' money to pay for student "art" that consisted of rosaries decorated with penises and and crucifixes emrging from rectums.

If nothing else it will be amusing to see these idiots try their "trangressiveness" with their new muslim overlords.

349 dsrtegl  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 10:03:17pm

re: #193 Armywife

Backing this up - I struggle with the govt mandating this, BUT my husband is a paramedic. He has to clean up the mess, whether you want him to or not. Nothing like trying to hold together someone who rocket launched through the windshield and landed on pavement. He has witnessed a few accidents where the seat belt contributed to the injury, however he has seen far, far more where the occupant walked away because they had their's on. We all have seat belt cutters in our cars as a precaution, but you better believe those seat belts are ON.

Speaking as someone who has broken out a windshield with his head (pre-seatbelt laws, the day before I started the 6th grade). I can tell you: WEAR A FRIKKIN' SEATBELT. I still get pieces of glass out of my head from time to time. I have deep gouges in my skull. I don't want to know how many IQ points I lost that afternoon.

350 Picayune  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 10:13:33pm

re: #6 Nevergiveup

And pride in periodically restoring Europe's liberties!:

Perhaps some of EU's voters are picking up on this theme of growing American disgust. Germany, France, & England are trending conservative in their voting patterns of late. Let us hope this trend continues and they show us that they have the self-reliance to defend themselves.

Jacques Chiriac canceled his visit to New Orleans, after being invited here by the LA legislature & City to join us in celebrating our 300 year anniversary, and it's French heritage, a few years ago. The MSM missed it.

He drew much local criticism and negative response for his anti-American positions at the time, including a real flaming email to him from ole Picayune referencing the perceived insults from his quarter - while the hallowed remains of young, noble American soldiers remained in the French soil that they liberated, without recompense and subject to enduring recent desecrations of their graves.

I suggested to Jacques that if he came here, that perhaps it was time to return our fallen soldiers to proper US soil here, once and for all, where they no longer would endure the insult of ungrateful, ignorant, and intolerant French socialist, among others.

My point was - "don't even think about Americans liberating France ever again, and start thinking about ways to repay the $ billions we spent to save France, a debt that had been forgiven, that will now become $ trillions w/ the added interest, and soon to be put back on our books- now that our perceived relationship has soured due to his proclamations, associations, and actions... (oil/food UN payola scam that lead to his government, if not his own office, sabotage of the US/UN Iraq policy, etc..")

I pointed out just how global TV would look with the NOLA parade routes lined with locals pouring out French wine bottles into the gutters as his motorcade passed by in a city world renowned for the gaiety of it's annual parades and French heritage.

He no-showed! Wonder why? He never responded to my email, j'regret! As Twain said through Huckleberry, " I'll warrant that there were dead cats in the audience just waiting to be flung." Whatever his reasons, he got my 2 cents worth, and we did not miss him here and his elitist entourage.

I think the best of them in EU now surly get the point of no more US liberation, unless of course, it's to protect their nukes from falling into the wrong hands.

We are living in very interesting times indeed, as the Chinese adage
suggests. The NYT had better be careful of what it wishes for - it may just come home to them in spades!

Keep a cool head and steady-as-she-goes, we're riding troubled waters. And....Joke'um, if they can't take a xxxx! It's the best medicine.

351 whatdafuq  Wed, Jun 11, 2008 11:46:45pm

re: #283 darren

Don't ignore "fighting words". When the Supreme Court ruled on that
subject the phrase they said was "fighting words" was: "you goddamned
racketeering fascist!"

Which certainly seems pretty tame given the kind of discourse in today's
politics. Of course, those "fighting words" were spoken to a cop.....

So I guess as long as you don't call a cop a "godddamned rackeeteering
fascist" you're pretty safe.

352 dmjboose  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 12:32:06am

I don't usually do this but :

*spit*

This crap makes me sick. You know what else is antiquated? property rights, freedom of religion, the need for warrants, the commerce clause, and any other limitation on the government. Because the government will act in good faith and make sure that we all get along right?

*spits again*

353 DaMav  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 1:37:22am

How do we get the offensive New York Times shut down?

354 Jed  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 4:11:06am

Someone in Canada should bring the NYT to the Human Ralations Commission with hurt feelings.

355 MJBrutus  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 4:32:55am

First we had McCain-Feingold restrictions on our speech. Far too many people nodded their heads and agreed that we needed to silence "big money" from corrupting our noble, but weak-willed politicians from becoming victimized by the temptation of those evil corporations and interest groups. After all, what's a little restriction on speech when the public interest in clean and fair elections is at stake.

Now we read the vanguard of the new "freedom" in which we can all rest assured that we will never have to hear a discouraging word. My oh my, but we are creating such a wonderful protective cocoon for ourselves. Safe from political corruption, safe from harsh words, safe from our own thoughts.

Let (the new) freedom ring!

356 AsianObserver  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 5:52:22am

re: #355 MJBrutus

Sorry, MJBrutus #355, I disagree.

Restrictions upon the flow of money are reasonable in an attempt to distinguish money as corruption from money as speech.

The Times article is different. It wants to impose Europe's Islamophilia on the USA.

357 ransom  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 6:21:56am

The NYT had no problem defending Larry Flynt and his porn rag Hustler. It was all about prinicple and the inviolable First Amendment rights.

Mark Steyn and Macleans, eh, not so much.

Where is Floyd Abrams when you need him?

358 Matt  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 7:04:43am

I'll die before I allow someone to fine me for speaking my mind.

359 Matt  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 7:06:12am

“Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech,” Mr. Gratl said in a telephone interview. “We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat.”

Wow. Just, wow. So much for sticks and stones.

360 eaglewingz08  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 7:16:11am

So when the US 'unilateral' approach to Iraq came under vicious attack by the libs who demanded that we apply a multilateral approach to NK and to Iran, the US complied. Then four years later, the libnuts on the left are complaining about 'outsourcing' our diplomacy to Iran and NK to to the Europeans and to the 5 Nations. If we had gone it alone, they would be talking about 'cowboy' 'rogue state' diplomacy (the US being the "rogue state", not NK or Iran, dontchaknow).
As for the NYU Perfessor's theory that freedom of speech is just some quaint notion that must give way to more pressing issues (like 'taqqiya' and submission to muslim or liberal overlords) here is his bio from wiki:
"Waldron is a liberal in both the general and American senses of the word, and a normative legal positivist. He has written extensively on the analysis and justification of private property, the political and legal philosophy of John Locke, and is an outspoken opponent of the American practice of judicial review, which he believes to be in tension with democratic principles. He has also criticized analytic legal philosophy for its failure to engage with the questions addressed by political theory. In recent years, he has also been a noted opponent of legal arguments which justify coercive interrogation techniques.

However, despite his claiming to be a liberal, Waldron is anti-free speech. [[1]]. Waldron has stated in his writings that speech which may cause any harm should be banned and punished. Waldron criticizes Americans who allow Nazis to march and speak under the banner of free speech; [[2]] of course, Waldron forgets, of course, that the Nazis denied free speech themselves. Waldron will now attempt to sue the author of this article for hurting his feelings.
Publications
Books

1984. Theories of Rights, edited vol. ISBN 0-19-875063-3
1988. The Right to Private Property. ISBN 0-19-823937-8, ISBN 0-19-824326-X
1988. Nonsense Upon Stilts: Bentham, Burke and Marx on the Rights of Man, edited vol. ISBN 0-416-91890-5
1990. The Law: Theory and Practice in British Politics. ISBN 0-415-01427-1
1993. Liberal Rights: Collected Papers 1981–91. ISBN 0-521-43617-6
1999. The Dignity of Legislation, Seeley Lectures. ISBN 0-521-65883-7, ISBN 85-336-1896-4 (Portuguese translation)
1999. Law and Disagreement. ISBN 0-19-924303-4
2002. God, Locke and Equality. ISBN 0-521-89057-8

Articles

2001, "Normative (or Ethical) Positivism" in Jules Coleman (ed.), Hart's Postscript: Essays on the Postscript to The Concept of Law. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-829908-7
2003, "Who is my neighbor?: humanity and proximity," The Monist 86.
2004, "Settlement, return, and the Supersession Thesis," Theoretical Inquiries in Law 5.
2005, "Torture and Positive Law: Jurisprudence for the White House," Columbia Law Review 105.
2006, "The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review," Yale Law Journal 115."

He is not a liberal in the normative sense, that is classic liberalism that founded the nation and governed it through WWII, but then became corrupted with Labor/Socialism moniker for liberalism/progressivism/communism variety.
I wonder if we will see the NYSlimes apologize for its defense of Piss Christ/DungMary(Brooklyn Museum) and the countless assaults on Christianity carried out by its readership in academe and in Hollywood every day? Yeah, right. Or maybe their assaults on the "Christian" militias and the JDL years ago. If assaults by muslims should get us to stop talking negatively about them and should restrict our rights vis a vis muslims, then shouldn't the acts of the militias and the Christian protesters against gov't funded atrocities have been applauded by the NYSlimes for the same reasons, and shouldn't the NYSlimes and other media have been sanctioned by the various Human Rights Boards for their support of these hate speeakers?
This brings me back to my musings

361 bubbasbbq  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 7:43:36am

Hey, if those asshats want to restrict MY freedom of speech, then I say WE restrict THEIR freedom of the press. I wonder how they feel about that?

362 MJBrutus  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 8:02:35am

re: #356 AsianObserver

Disagreement is allowed :-)

Restrictions upon the flow of money are reasonable in an attempt to distinguish money as corruption from money as speech.

363 MJBrutus  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 8:08:55am

re: #356 AsianObserver

Note: My entire post did not get through for some reason.

Disagreement is allowed :-)

Restrictions upon the flow of money are reasonable in an attempt to distinguish money as corruption from money as speech.

I think that you have set the bar far too low when it comes to justifying how our freedoms may be restricted. While freedom of speech does not guarantee one a right to a microphone, it does guarantee one the right to say what one wants in to his own microphone. I think that founders intended abridgment of our rights to be justified only when such strong criteria as clear threat to public or individual safety is present.

You consider it reasonable to halt speech to curtail corruption (assuming that it has any such effect). The NY Crimes consider it reasonable to restrict speech to avoid a "hostile environment." The standard of reasonableness that you put forward is IMHO far too subjective, open to abuse and contrary to what our founders intended.

364 InternationalObserver  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 8:32:32am

The print edition of the NYT lies even in the headline, which refers to hate speech.

But the speech in question is not hate speech, solely speech critical of Islam.

Some references:
British Censor Books on Islam in BOTH UK and USA
[Link: www.spiked-online.com...]

Brigitte Bardot on Trial for 'Anti-Muslim Hatred'
[Link: news.yahoo.com...]

New York Legislature Acts to Protect Americans from Overseas Lawsuits
Americans Subject to Damages for Offending Islam
[Link: www.democracy-project.com...]
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

365 Dad O' Blondes  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 9:38:25am

re: #12 Genosaurer

The irony of a newspaper columnist arguing in favor of restrictions on free speech...

Yes. But no.

The NYT is in the vanguard of pc speech and topic deployment. They'd be eprfectly pleased if all columnists wrote -- and thought -- like them.

This is a scary "news" story. And a glimpse into a very bad future place.

.

366 AsianObserver  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 11:55:50am

re: #363 MJBrutus

First, buying your own microphone is not the same as buying the microphone for a politician. The UnitedKumquatGrowersOfAmerica can spend as much money as they want advertsing their product. Giving money to a politician is a different matter, logistically and legally, and should be so.

Second, the Consitution is not a suicide pact. One cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre.

Do you realise that significant parts of legislation are written by industry lobbyists? That thousands of Koreans demonstrated yesterday in favour of their own government retaining stricter beef safety standards than the US does fo rits own citizens? Since when did the US adopt standards lower than the third world? And why? Because money calls the shots? Is that democracy?

A few years ago Business Week mentioned in its [pages why state government were becoming more active - the "regulatory capture" (BW's words) of the very Washington agencies by the very industries they're supposed to regulate.

Unconstrained flow of money to politicians would destroy democracy.

367 rlevitin  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 1:22:12pm

On the one hand, I am profoundly against censorship... on the other hand, there are some things that I wish were never uttered. For example, a lot of the stuff that gets debunked on LGF, the average shmoe on the street will not see that debunking.

The concept of "the answer to bad speech is more speech" is fantastic... and I agree with it completely, so long as the "more speech" reaches the same people who heard the bad speech in the first place.

The place where I find myself continuously in a dilemma is in regards to Israel Apartheid Week... on the one hand, I don't like looking down the path of censorship and think that the best way to go is to just stand right next to them and raise points about "Islamic Apartheid" that occurs in the 22 surrounding states, or simply debunk their points one-by-one. But on the other hand, there are a lot of bystanders who will not hear my counter arguments, and will walk away think "wow, Israel is a racist apartheid state, that zionist over there is really evil".. when I think like that, I want to just shut it down, but thats a slippery slope. If we ever manage to get an event like that banned, what will be next?

368 MJBrutus  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 1:53:39pm

re: #366 AsianObserver

First, buying your own microphone is not the same as buying the microphone for a politician. The UnitedKumquatGrowersOfAmerica can spend as much money as they want advertsing their product. Giving money to a politician is a different matter, logistically and legally, and should be so.

Under McCain-Feingold UKGofA cannot say, "vote for McCain" in to their own microphone.

Do you realise that significant parts of legislation are written by industry lobbyists? That thousands of Koreans demonstrated yesterday in favour of their own government retaining stricter beef safety standards than the US does fo rits own citizens? Since when did the US adopt standards lower than the third world? And why? Because money calls the shots? Is that democracy?

And this has what to do with the topic at hand? Are we now to make lobbyists illegal as well? You say money calls the shots, I say that venal, weak politicians call the shots and it is they to whom we should direct our anger, unless of course those lobbyists are holding guns to their heads. I criticize McCain for his campaign "reforms" but I will give him credit for the steps he has advocated and promised to make legislators accountable for their spending proposals and votes. The first step to holding them accountable for THEIR actions is to make them famous when they pile on the pork.

369 michigan tom  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 4:32:14pm

RE: #110

A Time for Choosing - Ronald Reagan

God Bless Ronald Reagan, God Bless America.

370 SunCat  Thu, Jun 12, 2008 5:04:04pm

It should be perfectly clear by now: Leftists call anything they do not like "Hate Speech". Meanwhile it is perfectly alright for them to use Ku Klux Klan rhetoric to defame groups they do not like.

Appose the hell out the these "liberals" or America will be in very serious trouble.

371 NR Pax  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 1:41:04pm

Dear world,

My rights are not open to negotiation or compromise. They are God-given and I will not allow you to abridge them just to soothe someone's feelings.

372 ethanxxx  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 1:45:43pm

So... I guess the Koran will have to be tossed in the toilet first. That S**T Rag is nothing but Hate. This will never fly in America. Too many of us are armed and perfectly willing to fight for our freedoms. The Left is inching closer and closer to that proverbial line, a little more every day... May God have mercy on their souls.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Please understand the internet!


Discover the World's largest E-Book Store! Save big on bestsellers!
Fast & Free Delivery 728x90