[Vision2020] Exploiting the Prophet

[Scott Dredge]

How is this different from yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater?  It could very well be considered criminal behavior if you went into a bar and incited mayhem - even worse if you did it with forethought.

> From: thansen at moscow.com
> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:32:09 -0700
> To: godshatter at yahoo.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Exploiting the Prophet
> 
> I tend to disagree, Mr. Rumelhart.
> 
> The first amendment legally permits me to go into the Backdoor (a bar in south central Los Angeles) and say, "Fu*k you, nig*r!"  As offensive as my statement may have been, the likely response to my statement may not prove beneficial to my health.  But, then, the response is something I should have considered and anticipated, much like the anticipated response to the video "Innocence of Muslims" by fundamentalists of the Muslim religion.
> 
> It is not so much a question of criminal behavior as it is a question of appropriate behavior.  Perhaps YouTube, in accordance with its guidelines, should have removed the video and terminated the user's account.
> 
> Wouldn't that have been more appropriate?
> 
> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
> 
> "Moscow Cares"
> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>   
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
> 
> "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students.  The college students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."
> 
> - Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)
>  
> 
> On Sep 24, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 09/24/2012 09:06 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
> >> This presents a dilemma. If speech can be limited, then how can there be true freedom of expression? If speech can’t be limited, then we have the right to be offensive (and worse). Forget about lecturing your kids about civility since the Bill of Rights allows them to be jackasses – and you wouldn’t want to limit the absolute freedoms in the Bill of Rights, would you? Neither option is acceptable.
> > 
> > I would think it would be possible to teach your kids that while the Bill of Rights allows you to be a jackass, it's not a particularly respected activity. I wouldn't want my kid playing in mud, either, but I wouldn't think we should restricts everyone else's right to do so.
> > 
> > 
> >> Why is this important? We should stop offending others and stop pretending that we have a right to do so. We wouldn’t tolerate this behavior from our children, so why tolerate it from other adults? Again, I’m mostly talking about cases of intentionally offensive speech. Thus, the insult must be intentional and it must also be offensive, meaning something that causes (in normal persons) “repugnance, revulsion and shock” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/).
> > 
> > There are practical problems with this. How, exactly, could I possibly know what offends you without chancing an accidental offence? What if my very existence as a "climate science denier" offends you? Should I never mention the topic? Should I never speak up at all, because I would just remind you of that fact? Also, what if some people can't simply take the truth? I, for example, think that Mitt Romney is a rich man that is completely removed from what it means to be poor. What if he finds this idea repugnant, or is genuinely shocked that someone would think that? Should I keep my opinion to myself just in case he might find reason to be offended?
> > 
> >> Don’t limit free speech. I’m doing ethics and not suggesting more laws in an already too law-governed society. Clearly some people (religious and otherwise) are touchy and that shouldn’t stop you from speaking your mind if you think you have something worth saying. Trying to deliberately offend another is another matter. That is not “protected” speech. It is merely a case of someone abusing actual rights in order to do wrong.
> >> 
> > 
> > How about we work instead on stopping people who have just been offended from thinking they have the right thereby to pick up weapons and assault a foreign embassy? That's a much cleaner line that was crossed, as opposed to trying to figure out exactly what it means to deliberately offend someone. If someone has the sudden urge to pick up an automatic weapon, an RPG, or even a brick and storm an embassy, maybe they should rethink their priorities.
> > 
> > It's like blaming the woman who offended her husband by talking back to him in a rude manner for the beating she received for it. Yes, I went there. The problem isn't the offensive speech. It's how they responded to it.
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > =======================================================
> > 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
> > =======================================================
> 
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120925/dcf2566c/attachment.html>