[Vision2020] apologists for violence

Sun Jan 30 15:16:11 PST 2011

Paul,

You'll beat them to the pass, since there isn't a rush to get there. 

I  think the "Don't tase me dude" kid's First Amendment rights were being violated, and you didn't. 

I guess I'm surprised by your defense of hypothetical, future state infringements, when you're OK with actual events in the recent past.

Sunil

> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:53:40 -0800
> From: godshatter at yahoo.com
> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] apologists for violence
> 
> 
> I do realize the straw-man nature of my argument, if you want to look at 
> it that way.  I'm just looking down the line a little bit.  It's great 
> to suggest that we all censor ourselves, and that we all learn 
> civility.  Human nature is such, though, that simple appeals to good 
> nature and good sense will work admirably on those who already practice 
> it and fail alarmingly quickly on those who don't. 
> 
> So what's the next step?  Learn to live with violent rhetoric?  Someone 
> will eventually get the idea that they can man-handle this recent event 
> into an attack on freedom of speech.  The only thing stopping them at 
> the moment is that there is no discernible relationship between the 
> attack in Tuscon and violent rhetoric on posted on websites.  If they 
> had found that Laughner was a ditto-head that religiously followed Rush, 
> then we'd already be knee-deep in attempts to do just that.
> 
> I'm just trying to head them off at the pass.
> 
> Paul
> 
> Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > I've seen your reply to Joe's response to this post. I hope I can 
> > comment without getting an invitation to sue you.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Sunil
> >
> > > Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:44:11 -0800
> > > From: godshatter at yahoo.com
> > > To: rhayes at frontier.com
> > > CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] apologists for violence
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > =======================================================
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110130/03ee3a60/attachment-0001.html 