"My country/president, right or wrong!"

In fact, the Supremes decide what is acceptable speech. The majority of the early hate-speech laws were struck down, most before going very far in the Federal appellate system. For "hate speech" to be illegal, the prosecution has the burden of proving that it directly lead to criminal acts which would not otherwise have occured, or that it was in mitigation of another crime (i.e., it can be used to deal out stiffer sentences for such crimes).

I notice you're still tap-dancing around the question of what constitutes dishonorable speech which ought not to be protected. Standard tactic--when your BS won't stand, change the subject.

0 Replies

Maybe if I thought dishonorable speech ought not to be protected, you could actually have a point Setanta. But since I haven't said that, and the notion that I have has been purely invented by you and Cyclop, there is nothing to answer.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
You are blindly following the others who cannot seem to differentiate between dissent and dishonor.

Your argument is flawed if you truly believe in the freedom of speech.

While I disagree strongly with Fox's delineation of "dissent vs. dishonour" it does not represent a threat to free speech unless Fox has the power to enforce her notions.

If she can, it is censorship, if she can't it's merely censure.

Seeing as her position is getting censure here (justified in my opinion) the reactions to her position represent as much an affront to "free speech" as her position does.

Simply put, if she wants to call it dishonour then that's merely her censure, and it can be met with censure, ignored or whatnot.

If she called it, say, treason, that would be a horse of a different colour as treason is punishable by law.

0 Replies

The never very sly Fox wrote:

I can't understand why those on the left are unable to see the difference between dissent and dishonor.

You brought up dishonor, and have in this sentence shown that you consider it to be something beyond the pale, something more than just dissent, at least something other than dissent. But you continue to refuse to clarify your position, to explain how there is some line in dissent which one crosses to arrive at dishonor. As mentioned, you've directed your attention to changing the subject, as opposed to explaining your position.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Summarized, it said that you will have to hunt high and low and under every rock on the planet to find a single case in which I suggest we should have less free speech or that there should not be dissent. You are blindly following the others who cannot seem to differentiate between dissent and dishonor.

Suggestion: Perhaps we cannot distinguish between them since you are a) not using either word correctly, thus making yourself hard to understand, b) are yourself unable to come up with a coherant definition of either word.

0 Replies

Most importantly, did anyone else notice that Craven was a cute little kitten for a while?

0 Replies

yep. that one always kindof throws me. the little white cloud fast-reading some kind of print seems so much more fitting - or some of the other ones.

0 Replies

Foxfyre Wrote:

Quote:

And I am unable to understand why those on the left are unable to understand that objecting to people dishonoring their country is not the same thing as squashing dissent

Quote:

Who decides what is acceptable and unacceptable speech in your world? Or is all acceptable to you?

It's ALL acceptable. If you truly believe in free speech, this is the position that you have to hold. And I truly believe in it.

I reserve the right to think that you are loony, outrageous, an asshole etc. depending on what you say. But I would fight to the death to defend your right to say it.

That being said, I didn't mean to make a straw man out of your argument. All I meant was that people have the right to say whatever they want. You may call what some people say 'dishonorable,' but that really doesn't mean ANYTHING other than the fact that you don't agree with the veracity of their statements, or with the validity thereof, and think that those statements allow you to think worse of a person.

That's fine. I pose you a question. Why can those on the right not see that our current admin's actions are more dishonorable than ANYTHING anyone SAYS about America....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

Most importantly, did anyone else notice that Craven was a cute little kitten for a while?

I think about 20-30 of my avatars are kittens or puppies.

0 Replies

Craven, how do you switch your avatars so quickly? I mean, they sometimes change 5 times in 10 minutes.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

They change every time you refresh your screen.

I figure it's a program of some sort that scrolls through an image library.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

SCoates wrote:
Most importantly, did anyone else notice that Craven was a cute little kitten for a while?

I think about 20-30 of my avatars are kittens or puppies.

How many do you have?

0 Replies

Sofia:

Quote:

You were correct, in that I would reject my country if it espoused genocide, or trampled on human rights, and such... But that is not applicable, thankfully. That being, I work to assist it in living up to its'potential, and would not dishonor it by certain behaviors I deem to be dishonorable.

Uh... so ignoring the genocide going on in Sudan right now; letting detainees (some of which are American citizens) sit in jail with no charge and no access to a lawyer; turning a blind eye to torture of prisoners by American contractors in Iraq, the people we are supposedly there to "liberate"; these things are all quite ok by you?

I wouldn't reject my country for these things. I would reject the politicians who are acting against my countries founding principles.

0 Replies

nemesmith wrote:

Sofia:

Quote:
You were correct, in that I would reject my country if it espoused genocide, or trampled on human rights, and such... But that is not applicable, thankfully. That being, I work to assist it in living up to its'potential, and would not dishonor it by certain behaviors I deem to be dishonorable.

Uh... so ignoring the genocide going on in Sudan right now; letting detainees (some of which are American citizens) sit in jail with no charge and no access to a lawyer; turning a blind eye to torture of prisoners by American contractors in Iraq, the people we are supposedly there to "liberate"; these things are all quite ok by you?

I wouldn't reject my country for these things. I would reject the politicians who are acting against my countries founding principles.

0 Replies

nemesmith--

The Sudan is not a part of the US. We aren't responsible for everything that occurs in the rest of the world, contrary to popular belief. Every other country in the world is equally responsible for the Sudan. But, the fact is we do care about world events, and have sent Powell to press Sudanese officials to stand up and take action to help their own people--which was an appropriate first step. I am confident that if this doesn't produce a change in Sudan, we will be a vital part in bringing the carnage to a halt--not because it is our responsibility, but because we are most often the first to provide help, money and logistics to these situations.

The judicial system is addressing the enemy combatants, and Abu Graib, as is appropriate. How you come to the absurd conclusion that any of these things is OK by me is an abberation in your own thinking.

0 Replies

"My country/president, right or wrong!"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know