[Vision2020] apologists for violence

[Paul Rumelhart]

I saw an opportunity to reiterate my views on free speech.  So sue me.

Paul

Joe Campbell wrote:
> I don't see that you're responding to the points that Roger made as 
> much as talking past them.
>
> One issue is, Should certain speak -- say violent rhetoric -- be 
> restricted by law?
>
> Another very separate issue is, Should people use violent rhetoric?
>
> Another very separate issue is, Should violent rhetoric be criticized?
>
> My answers are "No," "No," and "Yes." I think all points are worthy of 
> debate.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     I didn't read Michael O'Neal's editorial, but I do want to comment on
>     this topic.
>
>     I am a strong advocate of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
>     When I end up defending particular examples of speech that are being
>     argued against, I'm almost always defending speech that I disagree
>     with.  The reason for that is that speech I agree with is hardly
>     ever in
>     danger of being suppressed in today's society.  The main reason that I
>     defend speech I disagree with has to do with not wanting to give our
>     government the club that they can use to beat us into submission.
>
>     I would love it if there was less violent talk surrounding
>     politics, and
>     that there were fewer racial slurs and put-downs and just
>     generally rude
>     behavior on-line, on talk radio, and on the street.  However, it's a
>     better situation than giving our leaders the ability to determine what
>     is acceptable and what is not in this area.  I don't trust those
>     currently in power not to abuse this, and even if I did I wouldn't
>     trust
>     their unknown replacements not to abuse this after those in power were
>     voted out or ran up against their term limits.
>
>     If you are repulsed by political candidates flinging violent rhetoric,
>     imagine how much you would hate it once they have the power to
>     tell you
>     what you can and cannot say.
>
>     I would like others to tone down their rhetoric and I would love for
>     them to use reasonable logic and debate rather than trying to incite
>     people emotionally, but I'm not willing to unleash a demon in order to
>     get them to stop.
>
>     In my opinion, if we want to stay a free country (assuming we
>     still are
>     one) then we need to push back against governmental control on
>     speech in
>     every way possible and make sure that the exceptions are extremely
>     clear
>     and well thought out.
>
>     Paul
>
>     roger hayes wrote:
>     > Regarding Michael O'Neals recent editorial.
>     > I am repulsed by so many people defending the right to scream
>     "Fire!"
>     > in crowded theaters. We need to understand what we do when we incite
>     > people to riot or violence. I don't give a hoot from which quarter
>     > the rhetoric is flung, telling people "Don't retreat, Reload"
>     and the
>     > thousands of other vindictives being hurled at the public is nothing
>     > but sedition at worst, and trash talk at best. It is designed to
>     > prick at the raw nerves of fear and hate in which modern life seems
>     > to be so rich these days. How does the rest of the world view us? Do
>     > they hear the angry and often violent talk of media baboons
>     > advocating death sentences on people with whom they disagree.  Do
>     > they get wind of ridiculous racial slurs against world leaders and
>     > languages other than English? Do they fear to visit the United
>     States
>     > out of worry for their personal safety because of our growing
>     > reputation for violence and anger?
>     > A civil and healthy debate about our responsibility as citizens, and
>     > particularly as media or governmental figures to rein in our
>     language
>     > is a good thing. Shish, we need to take back our dignity!
>     > Sincerely,
>     > Roger Hayes
>     > Moscow
>     >
>     >
>     > =======================================================
>     >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>     >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>     >                http://www.fsr.net
>     >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>     <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>     > =======================================================
>     >
>     >
>
>     =======================================================
>      List services made available by First Step Internet,
>      serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                   http://www.fsr.net
>              mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>     =======================================================
>
>