<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>I've seen your reply to Joe's response to this post. I hope I can comment without getting an invitation to sue you.<br><br>I share your views on free speech. But I think what you've written below has much to do with, say, the state's reaction to Assange's 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 learning what it is up to: Private Manning locked up, and the Justice 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 speech. If they have, and I missed it, please show me. What I've seen is people saying we should discourage such speech, that we should 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 restrict freedom of speech, but no one else is suggesting we take that 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, and <br>> that there were fewer racial slurs and put-downs and just generally 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 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 speech in <br>> every way possible and make sure that the exceptions are extremely 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> </body>
</html>