[Vision2020] Freedom of expression

[Joe Campbell]

I am no fan of legal restrictions of hate speech.

Beat up secularism and steal the wallets of their lies!?! (Actually
the stupid ad doesn't even make sense.) I'm not sure how this gets
across the idea of teaching the students anything. And if they really
DID teach the students how to deal with secularists, don't you think
it is funny that they haven't invited any of the local secularist
philosophers to debate about this issue? Wouldn't it be good to
illustrate the skills of fighting "the idea of secularism" to the
students, if that was really what they were teaching? If the ad were
truthful, Nick and I would be invited to NSA every week, right? But
they can only sell this crap if they keep their students isolated.

Violent rhetoric doesn't have to explicitly advocate actual violence.
Nowhere have I or Nick suggested that they were explicitly threatening
people. But the fact is (a) the radical right uses violent rhetoric in
the form of hate speech directed at underrepresented groups (Muslims,
gays, etc.) and (b) actual violence toward actual members of these
groups occurs. Is there a connection? I think so. But that point is
debatable. It is why I write about this but I haven't pretended to
make a case for that yet.

What isn't debatable is whether the issue is worthy of public
discussion. It is. You might disagree with me about whether it is
violent rhetoric, whether it is conducive to actual violence, etc. But
it is clear that I can make these claims and try to back them up. That
follows from your comments about free speech. Your recent arguments
(not here but elsewhere) suggest that somehow my raising these issues
and criticizing NSA is depriving them of their right to free speech.
That is absurd. You've got me confused with one of your former English
professors. (This is just a joke! No harm meant to English
professors!)

I don't have a problem with Christ Church, nor with NSA. I have a
problem with some of their leaders (Doug, Dale), namely the ones who
use hate speech for political purposes; the ones who hide behind the
first amendment (both the freedom of speech and the freedom of
religion) in an effort to gain political power, control, and even
financial reward; the ones who use hatred and misunderstanding as a
tool to gain that power and control; the ones who pretend to be
anti-government -- unless they can get the government to tell gays
whom to marry; the ones who use irrational rhetoric since all the good
arguments work against their beliefs and aims. I dislike their
politics and their rhetoric, not their religion (which I do disagree
with). I dislike their politics because it is, in my opinion,
anti-democratic; it takes reason out of the political process and
substitutes irrationality; it explicitly promotes hatred and
misunderstanding.

But I've said this a number of times and you still don't seem to be
listening. I'm sure it gives you some sense of comfort to keep your
head in the sand and I'm fine with that. I just want you to stay out
of my way. I'm not really trying to convince you of anything. I'm
trying to raise a public discussion about political and religious
issues that I find interesting and important. If I wanted everyone to
agree with me, I would never have studied or taught philosophy in the
first place.

And for the last time I am not asking NSA to take the ad off their
website (Nick did but I did not). I'm happy they are flying their hate
flag. I'm just pointing it out. And I'm more than willing to talk
about it!

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I hate the concept of "hate speech" in law, and thus would like the non-law
> definition to be more strictly held.
> I do not see that home page as "hate speech" in either definition.  It's
> essentially a more creative and descriptive way of saying "we teach our
> students to fight the idea of secularism".  Nowhere did I see anything
> advocating actual violence.  It was a metaphor.  Or hyperbole.  Or
> something.  English class was a long time ago.  What it's not is hate
> speech.  Not in my opinion, anyway.
> I don't classify myself as a secularist, but they probably would.  I don't
> feel threatened in any manner.  If I met a bunch of NSA students in a dark
> alley and mentioned I was a proponent of secularism, the worst I would fear
> is a long debate when I'm just trying to get home from work.
>
> To put it bluntly, you all are making a mountain out of a mole hill because
> you don't like Christ Church.  Let it go.  If they start threatening people
> on their website, I'll be on your side in trying to convince them to stop.
>  As it is, I'm only tempted to send them a note telling them that I thought
> the gift card thing was creative.
>
> Paul
>
> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>
>> Just to be clear, I am not really offended by NSA's website. I find it
>> amusing. I'm also as straight, white, Christian, and male as you are,
>> so it isn't too surprising that I'm not offended, that I don't feel
>> threatened by people I know to be cowards and political opportunists.
>> My real claim is that the NSA website is OFFENSIVE, that it is hate
>> speech.
>>
>> Here's a good enough definition that I found on the web: "Hate speech
>> is, outside the law, any communication which disparages a person or a
>> group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual
>> orientation. In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct,
>> writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence
>> or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group,
>> or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or
>> group."
>>
>> I'm using it in the non-legal sense, so I'm not asking that the law
>> step into the matter. Are you suggesting that the website is NOT hate
>> speech, that it is not even worthy of criticism?
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And I'm not just talking about Freedom of Speech as codified in the Bill
>>> of Rights.  That's only there to keep our government from trampling on
>>> freedom of expression, which is a right we all have regardless of the
>>> Bill of Rights.
>>>
>>> If this discussion had nothing to do with freedom of expression, then
>>> the topics would change from "violent rhetoric" and "this offends me" to
>>> "secularism doesn't have to be the enemy of Christian thought" and
>>> "exactly what is secularism and why does it frighten them so".
>>>
>>> You see what I'm sayin'?
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Tom Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul Rumelhart stated:
>>>>
>>>> "I think the freedom of an individual or group of individuals to express
>>>> themselves is sacrosanct.  The freedom to express your opinion should be
>>>> held dearly by everyone, if they want to live in a free society."
>>>>
>>>> Nobody is arguing against NSA's right to speak or their right to post
>>>> comments on their website.
>>>>
>>>> Nick Gier and Joe Campbell are merely argiung that the statements made
>>>> by
>>>> NSA are inappropriate, analagous to those complaints made here on the
>>>> Viz
>>>> (and a local blahg) against those of us who express our displeasure with
>>>> a
>>>> certain local un-pastor.
>>>>
>>>> New Saint Andrews College and its "management" are free to post whatever
>>>> commentary they like.  Just as each of us has the right to evaluate the
>>>> appropriateness of those comments.
>>>>
>>>> Yasee what I'm sayin'?
>>>>
>>>> Now, I may be going out on a limb here by suggesting that there are some
>>>> Viz subscribers that feel less than thrilled by comments I have made,
>>>> and
>>>> they have every right to express their displeasure.  Many of them have.
>>>> And in the future many more will.
>>>>
>>>> And yet life goes on.
>>>>
>>>> Seeya round town, Moscow.
>>>>
>>>> Tom Hansen
>>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>>>
>>>> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to
>>>> change
>>>> and the Realist adjusts his sails."
>>>>
>>>> - Unknown
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>              http://www.fsr.net
>>>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>