[Vision2020] apologists for violence

Sun Jan 30 09:59:04 PST 2011

I saw an opportunity to reiterate my view that criticism is not censorship.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> I saw an opportunity to reiterate my views on free speech.  So sue me.
>
> Paul
>
> Joe Campbell wrote:
>
>> I don't see that you're responding to the points that Roger made as much
>> as talking past them.
>>
>> One issue is, Should certain speak -- say violent rhetoric -- be
>> restricted by law?
>>
>> Another very separate issue is, Should people use violent rhetoric?
>>
>> Another very separate issue is, Should violent rhetoric be criticized?
>>
>> My answers are "No," "No," and "Yes." I think all points are worthy of
>> debate.
>>
>> Certainly you think it is OK to criticize folks who criticize violent
>> rhetoric, so you should be fine with criticizing violent rhetoric. I don't
>> see how Roger's points are, in that respect, any different from yours. He's
>> not advocating passing laws restricting speech. He's advocating having a
>> conversation about it, which is JUST MORE SPEECH.
>>
>> Also, you should be able to step away from your love of free speech for
>> one minute and say that Michael O'Neal's nastiness is wrong, that it
>> shouldn't happen. You should be able to separate the issue of freedom of
>> speech and the restriction of speech from criticism of speech.
>>
>> Folks SHOULD be critical of O'Neal's writing. He's insulting and insulting
>> is just wrong. That we all do it is no excuse. We should all be openly
>> critical of O'Neal and try to encourage him not to spew insults and
>> distortions about his political opponents. Having a conversation about that
>> is a good thing, the kind of thing that should happen in a civil society. It
>> is not governmental intervention; it is merely another form of free speech,
>> people using their words to try to solve problems rather than resorting to
>> the kind of actual violence that nasty speech like O'Neal's bi-weekly rants
>> encourage.
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com<mailto:
>> godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>    I didn't read Michael O'Neal's editorial, but I do want to comment on
>>    this topic.
>>
>>    I am a strong advocate of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
>>    When I end up defending particular examples of speech that are being
>>    argued against, I'm almost always defending speech that I disagree
>>    with.  The reason for that is that speech I agree with is hardly
>>    ever in
>>    danger of being suppressed in today's society.  The main reason that I
>>    defend speech I disagree with has to do with not wanting to give our
>>    government the club that they can use to beat us into submission.
>>
>>    I would love it if there was less violent talk surrounding
>>    politics, and
>>    that there were fewer racial slurs and put-downs and just
>>    generally rude
>>    behavior on-line, on talk radio, and on the street.  However, it's a
>>    better situation than giving our leaders the ability to determine what
>>    is acceptable and what is not in this area.  I don't trust those
>>    currently in power not to abuse this, and even if I did I wouldn't
>>    trust
>>    their unknown replacements not to abuse this after those in power were
>>    voted out or ran up against their term limits.
>>
>>    If you are repulsed by political candidates flinging violent rhetoric,
>>    imagine how much you would hate it once they have the power to
>>    tell you
>>    what you can and cannot say.
>>
>>    I would like others to tone down their rhetoric and I would love for
>>    them to use reasonable logic and debate rather than trying to incite
>>    people emotionally, but I'm not willing to unleash a demon in order to
>>    get them to stop.
>>
>>    In my opinion, if we want to stay a free country (assuming we
>>    still are
>>    one) then we need to push back against governmental control on
>>    speech in
>>    every way possible and make sure that the exceptions are extremely
>>    clear
>>    and well thought out.
>>
>>    Paul
>>
>>    roger hayes wrote:
>>    > Regarding Michael O'Neals recent editorial.
>>    > I am repulsed by so many people defending the right to scream
>>    "Fire!"
>>    > in crowded theaters. We need to understand what we do when we incite
>>    > people to riot or violence. I don't give a hoot from which quarter
>>    > the rhetoric is flung, telling people "Don't retreat, Reload"
>>    and the
>>    > thousands of other vindictives being hurled at the public is nothing
>>    > but sedition at worst, and trash talk at best. It is designed to
>>    > prick at the raw nerves of fear and hate in which modern life seems
>>    > to be so rich these days. How does the rest of the world view us? Do
>>    > they hear the angry and often violent talk of media baboons
>>    > advocating death sentences on people with whom they disagree.  Do
>>    > they get wind of ridiculous racial slurs against world leaders and
>>    > languages other than English? Do they fear to visit the United
>>    States
>>    > out of worry for their personal safety because of our growing
>>    > reputation for violence and anger?
>>    > A civil and healthy debate about our responsibility as citizens, and
>>    > particularly as media or governmental figures to rein in our
>>    language
>>    > is a good thing. Shish, we need to take back our dignity!
>>    > Sincerely,
>>    > Roger Hayes
>>    > Moscow
>>    >
>>    >
>>    > =======================================================
>>    >  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
>>    <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>    > =======================================================
>>    >
>>    >
>>
>>    =======================================================
>>     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 <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>    =======================================================
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110130/7600dafa/attachment-0001.html 