Subject:
|
Re: Patriotism or Mass Hysteria?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Apr 2003 01:35:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
132 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> "Dixie Chicks 'get death threats'"
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2972043.stm
>
> this one's fun too:
> http://i.timeinc.net/ew/covergallery/img/2003/may22003_708_lg.jpg
>
> Anyone recall this happening with The Beatles and the famous thing Lennon said?
>
> What I am getting from some of you is that free speech is not without risk.
> Fine, I don't mind well-reasoned, passionate discourse from all sides --
> that's 100% the american way! But death threats? Isn't that basically
> saying you don't have the right to express yourself?
agree completely. as mentioned before, limits to free speech exists. and they
are threats and slander.
> The NYPD has reportedly been keeping the names of anti-war protestors on
> record. In other words, they were not freely allowed to express themselves
> without fear of govt. interference -- they have been databased and are being
> tracked! Isn't that basically saying you don't have the right to express
> yourself?
while i agree that the spirit of these actions might be anti-constitutional,
unless the police take any further actions, it's hard to really criticize them.
tracking and punishing crime is a really difficult thing to do, even when not
respecting civil rights. from a police point of view, radicals tend to be
trouble starters.
but constitutionally i see this as similiar to that big fingerprinting drive
they did a few years back. and the forced finger printing of everyone they
arrest, regardless of eventually being guilty or innocent. i think opposing
records of anti-war protestors is, in spirit, similiar to the spirit of
fingerprinting.
a kind of "presumed innocent but maybe guilty until proven guilty" additude
that prevades law enforcement. (my mom's a probation officer, so i've got the
chance to meet a lot of cops and other law peeps).
> What about that reporter that lost his job because he discussed the failures
> of the U.S. military strategy on Iraqi T.V.? Speak your mind and lose your
> job -- how is this freedom?
again, i agree, but from another point of view, isn't it the TV network's right
to fire whom they wish as per the contracts with individual reporters? having
said that, i saw what the guy said on Iraqi TV, and in a vague way, it can be
seen as seditious. in WW1 several anti-sedition laws were passed, people
imprisoned, and the supreme court has never struck them down (although no-one
really enforced it during vietnam or since).
I think in a wartime situation (just war or not), there is a fine line between
sedition and free speech. Being that the reporter was on Iraqi tv and said
something to the effect of 'iraqi resistance was more than the US expected and
cause a major re-thinking of the war plan' - it can be seen as urging Iraqis to
be more resistant; to continue fighting rather than surrender. in other words,
a verbal support to the enemy.
having said all that, i personally didn't find his words seditious or
treasonous, and a fairly accurate portrayal of the US military's misconception
that the iraqis wouldn't offer any real resistance at all. and i also believe
this war is wrong, and moves to either end it or resist it are justified.
<snip>
> Threatening someone with death for their political beliefs is NOT american.
> To the contrary, we are supposed to fight to the death for the right of
> anyone to speak their mind. The right of free speech is absolutely
> fundamental to our system of govt.
agreed whole-heartedly.
i find it immeansely ironic that it was in "Operation Iraqi Freedom" that a
reporter was fired for giving his opinion. and I believe this all points to
the gap between america's words and its deeds.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Patriotism or Mass Hysteria?
|
| "Dixie Chicks 'get death threats'" (URL) one's fun too: (URL) recall this happening with The Beatles and the famous thing Lennon said? What I am getting from some of you is that free speech is not without risk. Fine, I don't mind well-reasoned, (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
