I don't see that you're responding to the points that Roger made as much as talking past them.<br><br>One issue is, Should certain speak -- say violent rhetoric -- be restricted by law?<br><br>Another very separate issue is, Should people use violent rhetoric?<br>
<br>Another very separate issue is, Should violent rhetoric be criticized?<br><br>My answers are "No," "No," and "Yes." I think all points are worthy of debate.<br><br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>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. <br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<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>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Paul<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><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>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> =======================================================<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>