Antiwar protests.

"The administration's campaign has been a disaster"
"I don't think we have done enough in the diplomatic area"
"this administration ought to show some leadership and admit it (failure)
and come to some sort of negotiated end"
Did these statements come dangerously close to aid and comfort to the enemy? I don' think so.
They were made by Don Nickles R-Okla-Trent Lott R-Miss-(who went on to say "You can support the troops without supporting the President" and Tom Delay.
all of these directed at President Clinton re Kosovo.

dys

Perfect! Well done.

Neither. Next question?

Who wants to get back on-topic ?

I thought we were on topic. How exactly do you see it otherwise?

Thanks, tres ... that's the best laugh I've had all day! You'll make a great curmudgeon

Tres

I think your response here a bit facile. But you are playing 'gotcha', and not really speaking to the issues with much care.

There is, pretty obviously, a difference between one person expressing a view, and another person trying to shut him/her up. If one thinks it valuable to forward the principle of free expression, it's probably undiscerning to suggest those are equal sorts of speech acts.

An example from Canadiana...a couple of years ago, Bennie Netanyahu came to a Canadian university to speak. He was unable to give his speech because he was shouted down by a group of student protestors who didn't want him talking there. If we don't discern between the intent and consequence of these two speech acts (Netanyahu/protestors), then licence is allowed the protestors - they are just speaking, after all, if loudly - to effectively bar Netanyahu's right to express opinions. I think this an unacceptable outcome even if I think Bennie is a dangerous racist jerk, and I do.

But the more relevant argument is one you already know. You'd likely refer to it as 'political correctness', where some idea(s) gains such a stigma that it becomes, in some real sense, impermissable to voice, even dangerous to voice as certain extra-legal sanctions will or may come into play. I'm sure you could list off some of your favourite examples of such.

Thus, if we take this principle of free expression seriously, we don't just look to what gets written into law, but we peer a bit deeper. It's not terribly difficult to understand why some folks some times want to limit speech in the community, we have a zillion historical examples. The politically relevant examples are those which stem from the authoritarian urge - the folks in power don't want to be criticized. When the polity gets as bipolar as the US's has become, then it ought not to be too surprising that folks in party A might act as agents in this push to shut up the other side.

So, not really complicated, but it does take a bit of discernment.

Had you offered me an example where one person was shouting down another, I would have responded differently. Perhaps you fail to discern the difference, but I do not. I do not agree with anyone shouting down someone else, or stealing a press run of a school paper, or any of the other anti-free speech actions I've seen taken by the left in this country in recent years.

However, there is a world of difference between trying to prevent someone from speaking and trying to shame them by pointing out there actions to others. I hear a lot of whining about censorship when what I see is people calling other people unpatriotic, traitorous, etc.. These may not be "nice" things to say, but they are protected speech.

I "get" that. I "discern" the difference between speaking and acting to prevent speech. So the only question that remains is: Do you?

Even though they are blatant, bold face, ugly lies! Interesting~

tres

If you look back, you won't see an instance where I make the claim you suggest, and which you hang your response upon.

Yes, Bill. Even blatant, bold faced, ugly lies are protected speech.

Wasn't President Bush a very active protestor against the Vietnam War
when he went AWOL from his military post in the Texas National Guard?

I really don't have the energy to follow you on another of your attempts to alter the course of the discussion and obscure the reality that your point is unraveling. Maybe someone else would like to bang his or her head against this wall for a while. I need a rest.

I would truly love it if you could offer us a single valid source for such a claim.

Don't worry though... I will not be holding my breath.

Oceans away, US troops crave approval at home

By Ann Scott Tyson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

OUTSKIRTS OF BAGHDAD – Pvt. Mario Rodriguez has advanced to within a few miles of Baghdad in recent days. But even as the 3rd Infantry soldier pushes ahead with his mission in Iraq, he worries about what he will face back home.

http://csmonitor.com/2003/0408/p01s01-woiq.html

au

There is, very clearly, a sad corner to this, just as there was in viet nam. I'm deeply sorry it has happened again.

blatham
As I have said time and time again the protests should have been put on hold once hostilities started. The impact they would have on the troops in the field was one of the two reasons I cited.
This crap of I support the troops but not the war just doesn't cut it.

au

Yes, I know, and we do not agree on this point, for the reasons I've mentioned earlier. Each of us has a notion of our ethical or moral role as citizens, and are obliged, if we are to be true to ourselves and our values, to act in accordance with that sense of proper citizenship.

When Bush was at Yale, he exhibited quite a lot of disdain for Vietnam protesters. When he went AWOL, it was to work on a political campaign -- his father's, as I remember.

As for the AWOL story, it can be shown that Bush took off a considerable amount of time from the National Guard -- an unusual amount -- to work on the campaign. It was not technically AWOL (a little bit like executing an innocent person in Texas is not technically murder) because his superior officer claimed after the fact to have written a chit -- to get him off the hook. Google, and thee shall find!

I think we should look for another phrase to parallel "support the troops," an easier, quicker way of saying, "My heart goes out to the kids who find themselves in what I believe to be illegal combat, murdering civilians and other kids, initiated by an administration which was not elected to lead." Whatever the phrase, in such a circumstance it would be cruel and obscene not to protest. I find the idea that an American might see such a situation and not protest -- before, during, and after -- quite frightening.

How about just writing "I am hopelessly out of touch with reality"? That seems to sum up your position from where I'm sitting.