Isn't the posting of an image with gun sights on it free speech?

[renie408]

And when Sarah Palin did that the DU went apeshit. I remember pretty much everybody here being outraged and saying that if anything happened to the congressmen she had targeted, she should be liable. I don't remember a whole lot of people saying, "Hey, that's just her exercising her right to free speech."

Free speech is a great concept when the speech in question doesn't bother or endanger YOU. People love to go purist and shout about limitless free speech. But there is hardly anyone who would argue that inciting another person to commit murder shouldn't be punished. Or that inciting a riot should not be punished. There ARE reasonable limits on freedom of speech and there should be. Now, people can argue whether this movie violated those boundaries or not, but that there should be boundaries isn't up for debate. Not by intelligent people.

[KG]

1. seems there's a general misunderstanding of the concept of 'free speech'

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:47 AM - Edit history (1)

[renie408]

2. Yeah, there really are.

You can say whatever you want. If it endangers someone else, you should be forced to take responsibility and pay the consequences. You can argue that means that free speech is limitless, but that's like saying that there is no speed limit, just a fine for going faster than 70 on the interstate.

[Hubert Flottz]

3. I can tell you that I know someone who posted an asterisk

over Bush's picture on a political forum, in 2001 and the SS raided them and took their PC. Wasn't me, but I know for a fact that it happened.

[renie408]

5. If taken with their other public comments

to indicate a desire or wish to harm the President, then yeah, they should be checked out.

[Hubert Flottz]

15. Nope, just the photo.

No caption of anythying that I ever did see.

[jp11]

22. Nothing says that is the only thing that interested the SS about that person.

There could have been other posting on other boards, there could have been discussions, there could have been a past with other celebrity or political figures etc.

[GeorgeGist]

29. Sure glad you cleared that up.

[Scuba]

4. There's a fine line between fishing and just sitting in a boat ...

... and a fine line between yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and painting crosshairs on your political opponent.

It will be interesting to observe how our nation reconciles free speech with stochastic terrorism. Of course, "may you live in interesting times" is considered a curse in Chinese culture.

[renie408]

7. The results of speech should be taken into consideration...

and whether or not a reasonable person could expect those results.

If Jared Loughner (possible sp and too lazy to check) had stated that he shot Gabby Giffords because he got the idea from Palin's website, no one would question that she should be charged with SOMETHING. That doesn't make him less crazy or less culpable for HIS part, just that she would also have had some responsibility.

If the rioters are rioting and killing because of a film made by a Coptic Christian who, from their personal knowledge of the region, understood that their film was likely to enrage fundamentalist Muslims to riot...why is anybody arguing that the film is fine and that the makers and supporters are not culpable in some way? There is enough blame to go around. The rioters can pay the consequences for their share and the film makers can pay the consequences for theirs.

[Honeycombe8]

6. I don't know. But this guy's days are numbered.

He is in the crosshairs of tens of thousands of muslims. I would think that they will eventually find him. If he is an identity thief, as I saw on TV, he may end up in prison, anyway, which may ironically be the safest place for him.

Don't know if a news outlet can or cannot print his photo. I would think they can, legally. But who wants to be blamed for his being killed? It won't be one of the top news outlets with a good reputation that does that, unless maybe it's widely released elsewhere. They won't want to be associated with causing his death.

[renie408]

10. I don't know. Look at Salmon Rushdie.

He is still around.

[Honeycombe8]

30. He is smart, wealthy, famous, with friends in high places. Not a thug w/a criminal background.

Rushdie has had friends and money to protect him.

[krispos42]

8. It was Sarah Palin's freedom to put crosshairs on the political opponents...

...and our freedom to go apeshit about it.

The link between Palin and Loughner was way to ambiguous to hold Palin liable in any courtroom for anything related to the Giffords shooting in Arizona last year, but the general public going apeshit is not the government shutting down your free speech.

Bowing to public pressure is one thing, jack-booted FCC agents kicking down your door is another.

[renie408]

14. If somebody shoots Obama and says they are doing so because

Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly stated on his radio program that Obama is endangering America and should be taken out, then there is no question for me...Limbaugh should go to jail. When a charismatic leader repeatedly uses their position and force of personality to vilify someone and that someone is killed or hurt, then the leader should be held accountable.

If someone who has intimate personal knowledge of the Middle East makes a movie violating every one of the most sacredly held tenets about Mohammad in the grossest way for the sole purpose of insulting Muslims and fundamentalist Muslims, who have never met a riot they didn't like and that is pretty much common knowledge, take to the streets and attack a US embassy, then the film maker shares some responsibility for the resulting violence.

[krispos42]

32. If Rush Limbaugh has said that Obama needs to be killed, then Limbaugh...

...should be arrested immediately, before anybody starts sharpening their knives or polishing their guns.

But short of that, he's just a guy expressing his opinion. Otherwise, we'd have to outlaw pretty much all political talk that's not touchy-feely ego-stroking.



And I don't like the idea of the rational world being unable to criticize religion because the religion will take offense. This only encourages violent over-reaction, because it would become an effective way to stifle criticism, push forward your radical religious agenda, and consolidate power in the hands of charismatic, savvy, and ruthless leaders who will use that to their own advantage.

[oberliner]

9. What about a South Park episode making fun of Joseph Smith?

Should that be considered free speech?

It openly mocks a religious figure revered by many adherents of that faith.

[renie408]

11. When was the last time Mormons rioted in the streets of the United States

over a cartoon drawn by a Danish cartoonist? Or put out a bounty on an author's head because their book insulted Joseph Smith?

[Progressive dog]

17. So if we have enough nuts in our religion, no one can make fun of us.

Apparently free speech only applies when the subjects of the speech will never reply with violence.

[renie408]

20. No, it means that intelligent adults can tell the difference between the United States

and what is customarily allowed HERE and other places which have different customs.

"Apparently free speech only applies when the subjects of the speech will never reply with violence."

I am sorry...but 'duh'. No shit you are not free to say whatever you want if that speech can be expected to result in violence. If I started prodding my slightly unstable neighbor to come kill YOU with inflammatory and false information and he did it, would your relatives say that I was just exercising my right to free speech?? Cause, ya know, I am thinking NOT.

[Progressive dog]

24. No, intelligent adults can tell the difference between direct instigation and outrageous opinion nt

[oberliner]

31. So it's OK to mock their religion because they don't do those things?

That seems like an odd measure to use.

[hack89]

33. So we should give violent groups veto power over our civil rights? Don't think so. nt

[slackmaster]

12. Yes, and so is portraying the President as a chimpanzee

[renie408]

16. Yeah...and?

You guys get that there is a difference between the United States and other places, right?

[slackmaster]

28. Of course. Here all rights are assumed to exist until they are restricted through due process.

In some places rights are believed to be granted by government, or by an unseen sky being.

The bad video we're discussing here was made in the USA, therefore US laws and principles apply. People who got it over the Internet can just learn to deal with it.

[gollygee]

13. There are two issues

1. Freedom of speech

2. Responsibility, which I'd say is higher for someone running for office.

It was within her rights to do it, but it was still irresponsible. Having freedom of speech does not make you free from being called out if something is irresponsible or unethical.

[renie408]

18. That's like saying that there is no speed limit, just a fine for going over 70 mph.

If you can get in trouble for exercising your freedom of speech in certain ways, then free speech is NOT unlimited. I am not sure why people get so worked up over that. There is a limit to how much water you can drink in a certain time period without dying. That doesn't mean that water is bad for you or unnecessary to life. It means you need to be careful how much you drink in a compressed time frame.

[gollygee]

19. No it isn't

A fine is still something that is illegal.

She has the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean she's free from criticism. Criticism is also covered by the right to free speech.

[renie408]

21. I am not really talking about Sarah Palin...right?

[gollygee]

23. It applies to all cases of free speech

you have the right to say what you want and others have the right to criticize.

[renie408]

25. Killing people isn't criticism. It is killing people.

[gollygee]

26. They don't have the right to kill people

Obviously. That is not the responsibility of the people exercising their right to free speech. It is the responsibility of people who want to kill people to not do so.

[meaculpa2011]

27. Reasonable goes both ways.

When reasonable people here the word "FIRE" in a crowded theater they will run for the exits. The person yelling fire knows damn well that he's causing a stampede. Can the South Park creators anticipate that a deranged person might use their routines as an excuse to commit violence? How about the soccer player who scores the winning goal for the visiting team? Should he be prosecuted for the riot that ensues? Everyone knows that it can happen.

I will not surrender my right to free speech, or anyone else's, based on how some crackpot might react.