Subject:
|
Re: Patriotism or Mass Hysteria?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:20:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
281 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes:
> > 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?
>
> I had to reply as this is a time that I actually find myself agreeing with
> hop-frog. Death threats are not only inappropriate, but illegal, and should
> not be tolerated. If you want to call the Dixie Chicks traitors, or
> unAmerican, go ahead, but any type of threat is not a part of any civilized
> society.
Agreed. Equal protection under the law means that the government (which has
the force initiation monopoly, remember) has to take all unlawful actions
seriously. These people making threats need to be found and prosecuted, in
my view.
> > 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?
>
> Many police forces take the names of protestors, in case things get out of
> hand, they can hold those responsible to account. I don't see this as a
> major threat.
I'm of two minds about this. Merely protesting against the war is not
probable cause for anything. I don't feel that if you're acting peacefully
that you sholud have to give your name when asked, if you're on public
property at the time (and certainly not if you are on private, with
permission from the owner).
However I do support investigation and infiltration of groups that are
violent or have acted violently in the past. In this particular case, that
includes ANSWER since they're closely affiliated with groups previously
funded by the USSR that acted violently. We beat up our police for not doing
a better job of stopping 9/11 based on knowledge they could have had by
running correlations of public information, after all.
But that said I still don't think I'd take names at a demonstration.
Certainly not all of them. But if a speaker got up and said "we need to blow
up congress, let's go do it right now" I think I'd support taking HIS name.
That's hypothetical w.r.t. these demonstrations, as far as I know.
> > 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?
> Reporters are hired to display some degree of impartiality, granted many of
> them do little to hide their left leanings, but to go on a television
> station run by an enemy government and criticize the country that provided
> your plane ticket, seems not only stupid, but bordering on treason.
Dunno if it's treason. Almost 100% sure it isn't treason to make disparaging
remarks. (giving away military intelligence, as Geraldo supposedly did, is
another matter)
But Peter Arnett served at the National Geo's (and MSNBC's) pleasure. The
free speech issue here is not Arnett's since he did not pay for the soapbox,
it's his bosses.
Arnett was fired for saying things contrary to what his bosses wanted said.
Were it me I would have fired his editor and producer as well, they should
have known better.
If you don't like the slant of certain outlets, (and I am finding Fox and
MSNBC flagwaving increasingly annoying, so much so that I am going back to
CNN even though they're biased) don't patronise them. Or better yet, DO
patronise their free stuff but don't buy from their advertisers. I read NYT
articles over the web, on their nickel, but don't buy the paper, and don't
patronise their sponsors if I can help it. (that's hard!!!)
Arnett is a big enough name that he can find other work if he's competent.
In fact he did find work, and moreover, at an outfit much more sympathetic
to reality distortion, so he's all set.
Free speech doesn't mean speaking freely on someone else's nickel (as Arnett
did) or being free of consequences such as not getting speaking engagements
in future (as Robbins complains about). It DOES mean that if you get death
threats about it, the government must take it as seriously as any other
death threat, and it DOES mean that you shouldn't be automatically put under
surveilance or harassment for saying something that doesn't gibe with
current demopublican thinking.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Patriotism or Mass Hysteria?
|
| (...) Actually, it must be remembered that the government, then using force in accordance with written law, is exercising contract enforcement, which is 100% approved by Libertarian philosophy. Maybe I don't like it, maybe you don't like it, but (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Patriotism or Mass Hysteria?
|
| (...) I disagree. There should be no grey area here: you either have the right of unfettered assembly or you do not. The government has no right to infiltrate a group on the mere suspicion that they will act violently. Please see: (URL) not quite (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Patriotism or Mass Hysteria?
|
| (...) I had to reply as this is a time that I actually find myself agreeing with hop-frog. Death threats are not only inappropriate, but illegal, and should not be tolerated. If you want to call the Dixie Chicks traitors, or unAmerican, go ahead, (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
