==> “If you want to respond to my comments, please do so with some semblence of sentient intelligence and substance.”
It would be interesting to see Rud, Chief, and Willis have a self-perception competition.
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joshua
↧
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Jim D
Neither is really about free speech. Steyn’s is about a serious personal accusation that he leveled in a public forum, while Charlie is about a consequence of speech in free societies attracting a reaction from less free societies. The Interview movie was another example of this. More a culture clash than free speech issue. While Rushdie says no one has a right not to be offended, he can’t impose that. Serious people take serious offense whether he likes it or not, and an awareness of that is needed when making any statement in public even if it is intended as satire. Even without cartoonists, Islamists have non-speech-related targets, like soldiers, Jews, malls, schools, hotels, etc. It is far beyond a speech issue.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joshua
Just sayin’ it’s better to leave that kind of grasping, cynical exploitation to the “skeptics.”
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by gbaikie
–While Rushdie says no one has a right not to be offended, he can’t impose that.–
No one can impose rights.
You can impose privileges.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by RiHo08
We have a local case of a state appeals court overturning a county judge’s ruling that anti-gay speech was protected speech. In this case, a worker was fired from his government job for his off time public anti-gay speaking. When the fired government worker applied for un-employment insurance, he was denied because: “the attorney general’s office was justified in firing (this person) in 2010 because his posts on Facebook and an anti-gay blog, as well as his campus visits and TV appearances, clearly had an adverse impact on the agency’s (where he was employed) credibility,” “(this person)’s conduct undermined one of the department’s specific missions-ie the integrity of its anti-cyberbullying campaign.” “By employing an individual such as (named person),….the department undermined it own message.”
The content of what was said is not entitled to protection of free speech under the US Constitution’s First Amendment because of his job in a government office was perceived to adversely effect the government agency’s message. (The named person) was viewed by his boss and government employer as a cyber bully.
Free speech is never free.
↧
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Don Monfort
What legal angle? There is a silly civil lawsuit in the silly D.C. courts and then there is mass murder in Paris.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by JCH
You wake up to find out a Climate Etc. denizen has shot to death a bunch of people on the other side. Think about it.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Jim D
As I responded to Joshua, yes, I joined in by trying to make a connection, and am not proud. This is something that couldn’t be discussed on a climate forum unless Judith made a connection, and it was too big to ignore. I appreciate her effort, because it is something it is good to get out even within this forum.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Rud Istvan
Curious George, you have delved to the depths of the ‘philosophy of law’. Which is only optional even at HLS. And to which there is no answer.
On the one side, Hammurabi’s code and the presumption of innocence. On the other side, Critical Legal Studies (PC HLS when I was there) teaching that all law is just a way for rulers to oppress the ruled.
↧
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Don Monfort
“…Judith’s exploitation of the murder of civilians to score points in the climate wars.”
If you really mean that joshie, you should be too disgusted to hang around here any more. I don’t know why Judith tolerates this crap.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Fernando Leanme
I guess I’m not “mainstream”. I find both Mann and Charlie Hebdo quite tasteless.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joshua
Interesting participation by Rushdie in this discussion.
Note the unintentional irony from Carly Fiorina at the end: She notes that Muslim societies were examples of tolerance in the 16th century even as she argues that Islam is inherently intolerant.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by John Carpenter
Really interesting report. Thanks for linking it.
↧
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Ragnaar
John Smith:
I don’t think it was an accident, and the relatives of those killed may see it as a tragedy. I was after a less vengeful choice of words. Suppose we reacted to the aggressors in this case by promoting more free speech? That might infuriate them but it also might have them realize they can’t win on that front. Shrinking our definition for free speech here, sends a mixed message.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by mosomoso
The thing I have to guard against is my own tendency to groupthink and an “our gang” mentality. After I thought about Climategate I decided I disagreed with the pilfering and with some of the interpretations put on the emails. After I thought about Mann’s case, I decided that he had a right to sue over one specific matter and Steyn needed to defend a case (which I rather hope he wins). I know most skeps think otherwise, but my own skepticism does not rest on Climategate or the success of Steyn’s defence, any more than it rests on the Pause.
The other thing about which I have my doubts is the identification of so many with Charlie Hebdo. While I can think of nothing more tedious than a French shock/satire mag, it is very clear that those people were taking an almighty risk that I would never have taken. How can I claim identification with them? The wanting to lose oneself in a great feel-good mass is so NOT Charlie. Charlie’s problem was its stark lack of anonymity and stark exposure.
I am definitely NOT Charlie and it is too late to pretend I am by joining an enormous sea of protestors. While I comment as mosomoso for practical WP reasons (I am Robert Townshend of 177 Coucal Road Dondingalong, but don’t try posting and think twice about driving here without 4WD), the truth is I find anonymity to be an easier, softer option.
By the way, for me immigration is like fossil fuel power. My society derives massive benefits from it every day, has always had it, and would sink without it. While I don’t approve of abuses and mismanagement of immigration and I am opposed to all multi-culti PC, I think a racially and culturally static society is about as realistic as an industrial society powered by pathetic wind turbines. It’s pretend stuff.
I am not Charlie. I am not Steyn. I’m me.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Fernando Leanme
It is bad form to mock the oppressed. It is wrong to kill people because they have bad form. And it is also wrong to crank up islamophobia using 17 murders as an excuse to tar and feather people who had nothing to do with the crime.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joshua
==> “If you really mean that joshie, you should be too disgusted to hang around here any more. ”
I don’t find it “disgusting,” Don. I find it sameolsameol. People from both sides of the fence regularly employ rhetorical overreach to score climate war points. Judith included. The outrage about the term “denier.” The constant appeals from both sides about the “starving children” in Africa. The appeals to “truth” in science.
I don’t question that Judith thinks free speech is important, nor that she’s horrified by the murders in Paris. The fact that she employs rhetorical overreach doesn’t say anything about her personally except that she’s willing to engage in over-the-top advocacy. We all do it from time to time.
One of the problems in these discussions is that victim-card playing combatants need to view their counterparts as sociopaths to reinforce their own sense of self.
↧
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Fernando Leanme
Very brave thing to write.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by DocMartyn
Myth. People did not ignore Kitty, that meme was created by a journalist.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by A fan of *MORE* discourse
*MORE* SCIENCE-RESPECTING COMICS !!!
Thomas Midgley, Jr:
The Most Evil Scientist in History
“Let’s say you want to raise sea-levels …”
Good on `yah, science-respecting cartoonist Ryan North!
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
morediscourse@tradermail.info
A fan of *MORE* discourse
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
