<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Paul,<br><br>You'll beat them to the pass, since there isn't a rush to get there. <br><br>I think the "Don't tase me dude" kid's First Amendment rights were being violated, and you didn't. <br><br>I guess I'm surprised by your defense of hypothetical, future state infringements, when you're OK with actual events in the recent past.<br><br>Sunil<br><br>> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:53:40 -0800<br>> From: godshatter@yahoo.com<br>> To: sunilramalingam@hotmail.com<br>> CC: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] apologists for violence<br>> <br>> <br>> I do realize the straw-man nature of my argument, if you want to look at <br>> it that way. I'm just looking down the line a little bit. It's great <br>> to suggest that we all censor ourselves, and that we all learn <br>> civility. Human nature is such, though, that simple appeals to good <br>> nature and good sense will work admirably on those who already practice <br>> it and fail alarmingly quickly on those who don't. <br>> <br>> So what's the next step? Learn to live with violent rhetoric? Someone <br>> will eventually get the idea that they can man-handle this recent event <br>> into an attack on freedom of speech. The only thing stopping them at <br>> the moment is that there is no discernible relationship between the <br>> attack in Tuscon and violent rhetoric on posted on websites. If they <br>> had found that Laughner was a ditto-head that religiously followed Rush, <br>> then we'd already be knee-deep in attempts to do just that.<br>> <br>> I'm just trying to head them off at the pass.<br>> <br>> Paul<br>> <br>> Sunil Ramalingam wrote:<br>> > Paul,<br>> ><br>> > I've seen your reply to Joe's response to this post. I hope I can <br>> > comment without getting an invitation to sue you.<br>> ><br>> > I share your views on free speech. But I think what you've written <br>> > below has much to do with, say, the state's reaction to Assange's <br>> > Wikileaks revelation, and little to do with criticism of violent rhetoric.<br>> ><br>> > In the Wikileaks case, we see the state's reaction to the public <br>> > learning what it is up to: Private Manning locked up, and the Justice <br>> > Department trying to find ways to go after Assange. That's state action.<br>> ><br>> > I haven't seen anyone here saying the state should repress violent <br>> > speech. If they have, and I missed it, please show me. What I've seen <br>> > is people saying we should discourage such speech, that we should <br>> > regulate ourselves. That's not state action, that's self-regulation.<br>> ><br>> > You're making a straw man argument against inviting the state to <br>> > restrict freedom of speech, but no one else is suggesting we take that <br>> > step.<br>> ><br>> > Sunil<br>> ><br>> > > Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:44:11 -0800<br>> > > From: godshatter@yahoo.com<br>> > > To: rhayes@frontier.com<br>> > > CC: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] apologists for violence<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > I didn't read Michael O'Neal's editorial, but I do want to comment on<br>> > > this topic.<br>> > ><br>> > > I am a strong advocate of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.<br>> > > When I end up defending particular examples of speech that are being<br>> > > argued against, I'm almost always defending speech that I disagree<br>> > > with. The reason for that is that speech I agree with is hardly ever in<br>> > > danger of being suppressed in today's society. The main reason that I<br>> > > defend speech I disagree with has to do with not wanting to give our<br>> > > government the club that they can use to beat us into submission.<br>> > ><br>> > > I would love it if there was less violent talk surrounding politics, <br>> > and<br>> > > that there were fewer racial slurs and put-downs and just generally <br>> > rude<br>> > > behavior on-line, on talk radio, and on the street. However, it's a<br>> > > better situation than giving our leaders the ability to determine what<br>> > > is acceptable and what is not in this area. I don't trust those<br>> > > currently in power not to abuse this, and even if I did I wouldn't <br>> > trust<br>> > > their unknown replacements not to abuse this after those in power were<br>> > > voted out or ran up against their term limits.<br>> > ><br>> > > If you are repulsed by political candidates flinging violent rhetoric,<br>> > > imagine how much you would hate it once they have the power to tell you<br>> > > what you can and cannot say.<br>> > ><br>> > > I would like others to tone down their rhetoric and I would love for<br>> > > them to use reasonable logic and debate rather than trying to incite<br>> > > people emotionally, but I'm not willing to unleash a demon in order to<br>> > > get them to stop.<br>> > ><br>> > > In my opinion, if we want to stay a free country (assuming we still are<br>> > > one) then we need to push back against governmental control on <br>> > speech in<br>> > > every way possible and make sure that the exceptions are extremely <br>> > clear<br>> > > and well thought out.<br>> > ><br>> > > Paul<br>> > ><br>> > > roger hayes wrote:<br>> > > > Regarding Michael O'Neals recent editorial.<br>> > > > I am repulsed by so many people defending the right to scream "Fire!"<br>> > > > in crowded theaters. We need to understand what we do when we incite<br>> > > > people to riot or violence. I don't give a hoot from which quarter<br>> > > > the rhetoric is flung, telling people "Don't retreat, Reload" and the<br>> > > > thousands of other vindictives being hurled at the public is nothing<br>> > > > but sedition at worst, and trash talk at best. It is designed to<br>> > > > prick at the raw nerves of fear and hate in which modern life seems<br>> > > > to be so rich these days. How does the rest of the world view us? Do<br>> > > > they hear the angry and often violent talk of media baboons<br>> > > > advocating death sentences on people with whom they disagree. Do<br>> > > > they get wind of ridiculous racial slurs against world leaders and<br>> > > > languages other than English? Do they fear to visit the United States<br>> > > > out of worry for their personal safety because of our growing<br>> > > > reputation for violence and anger?<br>> > > > A civil and healthy debate about our responsibility as citizens, and<br>> > > > particularly as media or governmental figures to rein in our language<br>> > > > is a good thing. Shish, we need to take back our dignity!<br>> > > > Sincerely,<br>> > > > Roger Hayes<br>> > > > Moscow<br>> > > ><br>> > > ><br>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> ><br>> > =======================================================<br>> > List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br>> > http://www.fsr.net <br>> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> > =======================================================<br>> <br> </body>
</html>