Free Speech (only if you agree with it)?

[laxfan25]

And the fact that we allowed him to speak just demonstrates the superiority of our system. To then say "it's not prudent to extend free speech rights to non-Americans" contradicts the concept.
I also think Columbia and Lee Bollinger knew exactly the responsibility they had, foresaw what was needed and President Bollinger delivered a very stinging rebuke to the Iranian president in his introductory remarks. I felt it was very well handled and represented American democracy and civil rights at its finest - to be juxtaposed quite nicely with the situation in Iran.

[Beta]

What about the (sick and disgusting) Westboro Baptist Church showing up at funerals with signs and protesting?



Here's an addition, them protesting the Minnesota bridge collapse victims. This is from their website.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/aug2007/20070802_minneapolis-bridge-collapse.pdf

[Sonny]

I also think Columbia and Lee Bollinger knew exactly the responsibility they had, foresaw what was needed and President Bollinger delivered a very stinging rebuke to the Iranian president in his introductory remarks. I felt it was very well handled and represented American democracy and civil rights at its finest - to be juxtaposed quite nicely with the situation in Iran.

Do you honestly think that? Or was it more of a case where Lee Bollinger/Columbia wanted to stick it to the Bush Administration and then after an enormous uproar (fueled by the right leaning blogs), he tried to save a little face at the end of the day.

I felt it was very well handled and represented American democracy and civil rights at its finest - to be juxtaposed quite nicely with the situation in Iran.

Too bad the folks back in Iran won't get to enjoy the view of both situations....

[LaxRef]

What about the Westboro Baptist Church showing up at funerals with signs and protesting?

Here's an addition, them protesting the Minnesota bridge collapse victims. This is from their website.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/aug2007/20070802_minneapolis-bridge-collapse.pdf

The nice thing about free speech is that, when people exercise it, you get to see how stupid they are. Better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

An equally logical argument would be that God made the bridge collapse because there are those in the state of Minnesota who are intolerant of people who are different.

[Beta]

I mean it's great that they're (obviously) stupid...but what about the people in attendance of a funeral. I'm sure everyone here has been to a funeral for someone close...how would we all feel if someone showed up protesting them and saying "god hates them because they're a fag" (or whatever it is the WBC likes to say about people)? You'd most likely be pretty hurt/offended.

Does freedom of speech mean that you can bash/terrorize people in their time of grief?

[laxfan25]

At the height of their activities, at least here in Michigan, an injunction was granted where the WBC members had to stay a certain distance from the actual funeral services. Seemed like a reasonable accomodation to protect the free speech rights of people with a very outrageous point of view. I certainly don't think it helps win them any converts - and reinforces my impression that they are sick and warped individuals with a perverted outlook.

[laxfan25]

I also think Columbia and Lee Bollinger knew exactly the responsibility they had, foresaw what was needed and President Bollinger delivered a very stinging rebuke to the Iranian president in his introductory remarks. I felt it was very well handled and represented American democracy and civil rights at its finest - to be juxtaposed quite nicely with the situation in Iran.

Do you honestly think that? Or was it more of a case where Lee Bollinger/Columbia wanted to stick it to the Bush Administration and then after an enormous uproar (fueled by the right leaning blogs), he tried to save a little face at the end of the day.

Yes, I think that - what's so hard to believe about that? You're ascribing motives to Columbia and Bollinger (wanting to "stick it to Bush") that they might not agree with. They may not see eye-to-eye with the Bush Adminstration on various issues, but perhaps they saw it as an opportunity to have his students hear directly from a figure that has been very much in the news, rather than having Fox/CNN or the White House tell them what to think. After all, we are considering (and in Cheney's case, salivating for) strong military action against Iran - let's see what this modern-day Hitler has to say. Did he pound his shoe on the rostrum and declare "we will bury you!"? Is it because he has stated that he wants to push Israel into the sea? Perhaps that is some hyperbole reflecting the feelings of most of the Arab world that the STATE of Israel (not the people) was illegitimately formed - rightly or wrongly. Even the Bush Administration has stated that there needs to be a Palestinian state formed if there is ever to be a hope for peace in the Mideast.
Is it because Iran is pursuing nuclear power, and possibly nuclear weapons? Nuclear proliferation is a problem, but what gives us the right (not just the power) to dictate who are the members of the nuclear club? We haven't invaded India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel or any other members of the club - why is Iran so singularly dangerous?
If the President of Iran said that the US has to destroy all of its nuclear weapons because they make him uneasy - wouldn't you find that laughable? "What gives HIM the right to dictate to us??" So why should the reverse be any less of an affront to the people of Iran?
I think what we found from the speech is that Amahdinejad is not a wild-eyed lunatic frothing at the mouth, but perhaps he could be someone that could be talked to in a reasonable dialogue addressing a range of issues of concern to both nations. After all, while we impose unilateral sanctions you might have noticed that the Chinese and Russians have been more than willing to sit down with him.

I felt it was very well handled and represented American democracy and civil rights at its finest - to be juxtaposed quite nicely with the situation in Iran.

Too bad the folks back in Iran won't get to enjoy the view of both situations....

No, but we did, and someday maybe the situation in Iran will improve to where there is true freedom of the press - I just don't think it's something we're very skilled at imposing on other nations.

[peterwho]

I think what we found from the speech is that Amahdinejad is not a wild-eyed lunatic frothing at the mouth, but perhaps he could be someone that could be talked to in a reasonable dialogue addressing a range of issues of concern to both nations. After all, while we impose unilateral sanctions you might have noticed that the Chinese and Russians have been more than willing to sit down with him.

I believe this will be headed in a tangential direction, but here goes...

So, let's send "The Greatest Ex-President Ever" (Carter) to Iran to have a chat with Amahdinejad.

They could discuss Iran's nuclear program - Jimmy knows a lot about this. I'm sure they would be willing to give Jimmy a tour. He could tell us if they are developing fuel for a clean electric plant to reduce the carbon output or weapons to wipe us from the face of the planet.

They could talk about human rights. Jimmy is big on this, too.

Jimmy is a devout Christian. He could ask Amahdinejad why he hates Christians and Jews and why he doesn't believe the Holocost occurred.

Jimmy could ask Amahdinejad why he is sending insurgents and bombs into Iraq. Jimmy could ask him to stop.

They could reminisce about the hostage crisis. Jimmy could ask for feedback on his handling of the situation.

Back on-topic.

I think the answer to the original question is that, in general, Conservatives were raised by their parents to be respectful. They were the kids in the class who raised their hand and waited their turn. They were the kids on the debate team.

On the other hand, Liberals were the ones who blurted out the answers in order to get attention. They were the ones who gave wonderfully creative speeches, full of emotion, with little substance. They were the kids in student government who promised "big changes" but got a pop machine installed in the cafeteria, instead.

In the late 60's and early 70's, I was one of those who deeply opposed the war. With my Western values, I was convinced that discourse and negotiation was the most civilized way to resolve any conflict. I avoided bullies (never had a fist fight). I marched in protests. I grew my hair long. I wrote letters to the editor. I used many of my writing assignments to express my views. Neil Young was my hero. I was, however, respectful and engaged in lively debate whenever possible.

Over the years, I have listened and learned. I have a deeper appreciation for other cultures and the history of our world. Many of my Western ideals have been tempered with reality.

Disruptors accomplish nothing beyond calling attention to themselves and blocking meaningful discourse. They are another factor in the polarization of opinion in our society.

[LaxRef]

I think the answer to the original question is that, in general, Conservatives were raised by their parents to be respectful. They were the kids in the class who raised their hand and waited their turn. They were the kids on the debate team.

This is such a ridiculous assertion I don't know where to start. In general, conservatives were on the debate team?! Unless conservatives make up about 1% of the population, this makes no sense.

Similarly, there are many conservatives and liberals raised to be respectful, and many of each that weren't.

[peterwho]

Similarly, there are many conservatives and liberals raised to be respectful, and many of each that weren't.

So, how do you explain the fact that all of the disruptions serving as the basis for this topic are being committed by those on the Far Left?

The debate team/student government was an analogy to illustrate the point - I guess it wasn't an experience you shared.

[Beta]

You people need to stop ripping on Iran...I mean look...they LOVE America and jews...they even went as far to make a cute little design for all to enjoy:



I mean sure they made an American flag and added a Nazi symbol, then a Jewish star of David...but they're just practicing their free speech freedoms.

...

How about free speech permitting you don't infringe upon other's rights...part of that includes an "anti hate speech" portion as well?

[sohotrightnow]

peterwho wrote:
I think the answer to the original question is that, in general, Conservatives were raised by their parents to be respectful. They were the kids in the class who raised their hand and waited their turn. They were the kids on the debate team.

Sir, I could not agree with you more. Conservative children excel at such a young age in the classroom that most of them decide that college is not for them, let alone graduate school. Thank God that I raised my hand in class and was able to add 2+2. I laughed and ridiculed my stupid liberal 1st grade counterparts for not being able to do so. They would blurt out stupid things like, "the answer is 3!" God, they were stupid. In debate class, I would just keep on repeating "tear down that tetherball pole!" Those stupid liberals had no answer for that one. I sometimes wonder what those dumb liberal kids are doing. Probably doing something stupid, like being a lawyer, doctor, or scientist.

[laxfan25]

Well I guess the first state of lacrosse has no truck with Westboro Baptist either! Wonder if they'll be able to collect anything?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21566280/

[Zeuslax]

"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace"

I'm trying hard John!

[MandibleS4L]

I tried to imagine a world like that. Didn't work so well, ended up looking like California minus the hallucinigens and boys named Sue.