CU Prof. should be fired!

No the voting stopped because I only had it set to go for 7 days. Maybe the mods can open it again.

I don't think people should be fired for speaking their opinions. Too bad that doesn't seem to apply to people on the right side of the spectrum like it does on the left.

It should be evenly applied. As long as no one advocates violence.

Just remember Churchill is part of the "America First Crowd" and they are loved by those on the left.

Remember how people on the left wanted Trent Lott to be removed for saying even less then Churchill did.

Also don't forget how at one time Jesse "Con man" Jackson refered to Chicago as hymee town.

Yeah. These are some of the examples I'm thinking of. How many sportcasters made some benign misstatement and were canned? Those weren't even intentionally bad. What was one....runs like a monkey...?

Double standard.

Rush limbaugh regarding Donovan McNabb?

He got sacked for saying Donovan gets too much attention as a blakc quaterback because the media wants a black to succeed. Not even racist or inflammatory but he was sacked (which was fine IMO). And if he got sacked then Churchill should too.

Theres no double standard. Only a partisan blur would make you think so.

Remeber those are examples of people being bigots and racists, not using their free speech.

America has gone soft. What is considered compassion merely caters the whims and fancies of Satan. And thus, you are threatened in the world and thus you will fall.

This 'professor' should not be fired, he should gain the proper and godly punishment of one Thomas Cottam, papist agent of the devil, finally brought to justice in the Tower in 1580. Withstanding, for he had the strength of Satan, the scavenger's daughter, a device which looped a metal band around the spine to bend it nearly in two, he was dragged on a hurdle through the muddy streets of Tyburn, past the jeering crowds, and then hanged, taken down while he was still alive, and castrated; his stomach was then slit open and his intestines pulled out to be burned before his dying eyes, whereupon he was beheaded and his body cut in quarters, the pieces displayed as a warning.

I have some small hope for America, though. Abu Ghraib and the rethinking of the values of torture seem a bright spot there in America's future.

I was thinking about Jimmy the Greek and Howard Cosell--but I guess Rush fits as well.

They were all sacked. So, freedom of speech seems to only apply to the leftie speakers.

Ah, (wiping nostalgic tear from my eye) good times. Good times.

Comparing a tenured faculty member to a sports guy is like apples and oranges. How about politicians? Do we "fire" every idiotic politician who says something inappropriate?

On second though, maybe we should...

The Dutch government has announced its plans for new anti-terror laws. They include the possibility to prohibit people who haven't violated any law yet but whom the police or intelligence service suspects of involvement in terrorist groups or activities from being at Schiphol Airport or on the Binnenhof, where parliament is located, and obliging them to periodically register at the police.

The new laws also include one that would make it a crime to justify or glorify terrorist attacks. Reflecting on how other countries deal with this, the liberal Christian newspaper Trouw last Saturday looked to Spain (where glorification of terrorism is a crime but few people are arrested solely on that charge) and to the US. There, Trouw discovers the Ward Churchill case and notes with a mix of amazement and admiration, that "it is telling about America, where freedom of expression is in the First Amendment of the Constitution and always interpreted liberally, that nobody even suggests" that Churchill be prosecuted, for apologising or celebrating terrorism for example. "So strong is the belief in free expression that even governor Bill Owens, in his indignant letter to the Board of the university, had to write that "nobody wants to infringe on mister Churchill's right to free expression"."

Trouw quotes dean Phil DiStefano who says he thinks Churchill's remarks are "offensive", but also that: "I have to support his right as American citizen to have and express his opinion no matter how disgusting it is." The Association of Professors, Trouw notes, demands the right for its members to make "even the most painful and offensive statements".

Trouw: "A prohibition of glorifying terror would in America be impossible, says Gene Policinelzi, director of the First Amendment Charter. "We make a sharp distinction between commentary and participation. Only if the prosecutor can prove that a text contains a coded message to terrorists do I think prosecution would be possible."

"We believe in America that the First Amendment is there exactly for extreme opinions. You don't need to protect opinions that noone takes offense to, do you?"

I thought that was an interesting take from abroad. A stirring evocation of a uniquely American freedom of expression of even wayward opinions. Which neatly relativates the outrage over attempts to fire Churchill - in Holland, if the new laws pass, he could have been arrested (whether the new laws will pass I think isnt sure yet, because the Democrats, the junior government partner, are still criticizing it sharply).

As a fellow Dutchman, I do have my sidenote to this take though ... It holds true when it comes to judicial clampdown - apparently, we are a lot less free here, or threaten to become so. On the other hand, in day-to-day discourse we have a lot less self-censorship here. The way our PM is approached by journalists would be absolutely impossible there. And the way both politicians and opinion makers discuss things live on TV here (for better or for worse), with van Gogh calling Muslims goatf*ckers and Pim Fortuyn inviting "all the boys of Holland to come check" if he is as bald "below" as on top, would so not fly in America.

But - an interesting, relativating take from abroad on the Churchill case, I thought.

Interesting story Nimh. Makes one wonder why some Americans keep using "fascist" to describe the American government.

They don't udnerstand what it's like to live under a true fascist regime. I'd label it ignorance but I can be nice and call it "misinformed".

Really-- try saying "I heart Nazis" in Germany. You'll get thrown into the gulag.

Neo-Nazis upstage Dresden memorial

Yeah except that's not true because theres rampant anti-semitism in a lot of areas of Europe and I don't hear those jail cells slammin shut. :wink:

El Diablo---

Your point is my main problem with supressing speech. Its fine to BE a Nazi--you just can't SAY it.

But, nimh's link shows something is either changing there, or the police can't keep up with the neo-Nazis. What they did is against German law--but they got away with it.

I'll have to look into that. It was only recently that I found out certain speech was illegal there. I thought the law should be changed. Seems like something's afoot. I'm just sorry it's due to a bunch of neo-Nazis protesting. I was rather hoping there weren't such a big group of them...

Nemmind, Lash is just getting mixed up in her prejudices. You see, "Old Europe" is full of racists and raging anti-semites BUT you cant say a thing there, cause they're so politically correct - they'll send you to "the Gulag" for nothing EXCEPT the prisons in Europe are actually a scandal of obscene luxury cause of how we pathetically pamper our criminals.

Sucks when the stereotypes you simultaneously hold dear about a place end up conflicting with each other ...

You would know.

Yeah. Nemmind that BS, Diablo.

I meant exactly what I said. You can BE it, you just can't SAY it. Its not a prejudice, it's a fact.