Originally posted by generalissimoI don't think people should be able to directly and specifically urge people to commit crimes. For example, I think someone should have gone in and silenced (by arresting them, and turning off their microphones) those Rwandan broadcasters who, at the height of frenzied machete wielding genocide, urged people - on air - to go and hack people from the other tribe to death, including mentioning places where men, women and children were hiding etc. Hardly meets the definition of "public discourse" perhaps, but it was savage criminal behaviour that should have been stopped.
In your view, should public discourse be totally unrestrained by legislation in all circumstances?
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoNot to me, you haven't. Limbaugh's comments were not "hate speech". He was not "[stirring] up racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, or abuse and harassment of individuals or groups", in any shape or form. For you to suggest that he was, only serves to confirm that you are, at best 'soft' on free speech, but - as I would have it, based on your consistency on this matter - an actual enemy of free speech. So there we have it. The disagreement in a nutshell.
I believe I have [explained "further regulation"] already
And that'll have to do for now as I am off to bed, it being 2.30am.
If - while I sleep - you can successfully demonstrate how Limbaugh's comments could in any credible way be described as stirring up racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, or abuse and harassment of individuals or groups - or if you are willing to describe the sanctions or punishments that you propose to put in place in order to inhibit him from speaking freely, then I will respond tomorrow.
Originally posted by FMFWell, I have never labeled myself an advocate of free speech, this is not an image I have ever sought to cultivate. However, that isn't to say that Im adamantly opposed to it, I tolerate it in the knowledge that generally speaking is does society more good than harm. I find it hard to believe that my remarks would be sufficient to describe me as "the most prominent enemy of free speech on this forum" surely you could think of other names who are more worthy of this title.
Yes. Especially in a case like your suggestion that Limbaugh's freedom of speech should be curtailed in any way for his remarks about the Japanese. You are not an advocate of free speech, generalissimo. You want to pick and choose the things you feel need "further regulation". You are the most prominent enemy of free speech on this forum.
Originally posted by FMFLimbaugh's comments were not "hate speech". He was not "[stirring] up racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, or abuse and harassment of individuals or groups", in any shape or form
Not to me, you haven't. Limbaugh's comments were not "hate speech". He was not "[stirring] up racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, or abuse and harassment of individuals or groups", in any shape or form. For you to suggest that he was, only serves to confirm that you are, at best 'soft' on free speech, but - as I would have it, based on your consistency on this ...[text shortened]... in place in order to inhibit him from speaking freely, then I will respond tomorrow.
From the OP's link:
Rush Limbaugh: "The Japanese have done so much to save the planet. He's right. They've given us the Prius. Even now, refugees are still recycling their garbage, and yet Gaia levels them [laughs], just wipes them out."
Here we have the infamous broadcaster unequivocally deriding the victims of the natural disaster, relishing the apparent irony of how "Gaia wipes them out" despite their recycling. I don't see how finding amusement in the death or "wiping out" (as he put it) of those people doesn't amount to "abuse and harassment of individuals or groups".
In addition to this specific case it appears to be the case that Limbaugh has a history of offensive comments directed at asians, from the link:
"This isn't the first time the controversial Limbaugh has found himself under fire over comments he made about the Japanese people. Limbaugh imitated (video) Chinese President Hu Jintao's speech from a press conference with United States President Barack Obama earlier this year and the video went viral. His behaviour was condemned by California State Senator Leland Yee who said, "His action were 'hurtful' to the Japanese community.""
So perhaps, given mr. Limbaugh's brand of "humor", even a case for racial or ethnic hatred could be constructed after all.
Originally posted by generalissimoLimbaugh is free to deride whoever he wants. He is free to relish irony, as he sees fit. He is free to find and express amusement and free to be not funny. He is free to make offensive comments about Asians. He is free to say something about someone that someone else says is hurtful and, indeed, that someone else is free to say that what Limbaugh said is hurtful. You are free to say you are offended by him and that he is "infamous". All these freedoms are important and should, as I have said, be cherished and defended.
Here we have the infamous broadcaster unequivocally deriding the victims of the natural disaster, relishing the apparent irony of how "Gaia wipes them out" despite their recycling. I don't see how finding amusement in the death or "wiping out" (as he put it) of those people doesn't amount to "abuse and harassment of individuals or groups". [...] So per ...[text shortened]... d of "humor", even a case for racial or ethnic hatred could be constructed after all.
Originally posted by FMFHe's even free to slip in the bathtub and subject a nation halfway across the world to a tsunami by the power of his mighty left ass cheek.
Limbaugh is free to deride whoever he wants. He is free to relish irony, as he sees fit. He is free to find and express amusement and free to be not funny. He is free to make offensive comments about Asians. He is free to say something about someone that someone else says is hurtful and, indeed, that someone else is free to say that what Limbaugh said is hurtful ...[text shortened]... mous". All these freedoms are important and should, as I have said, be cherished and defended.
Originally posted by FMFThe question is not whether he is free to deride whoever he wants, or anything of the sort. You asked me what it was that I considered to be "stirring up racial, ethnic, and religious hatred and harassment of groups or individuals" and I provided you with an answer, in specific referrence to Limbaugh's comments and conduct. Im well aware of your unrelenting desire to cherish and defend free speech, there's no need to reiterate what you have said already.
Limbaugh is free to deride whoever he wants. He is free to relish irony, as he sees fit. He is free to find and express amusement and free to be not funny. He is free to make offensive comments about Asians. He is free to say something about someone that someone else says is hurtful and, indeed, that someone else is free to say that what Limbaugh said is hurtful ...[text shortened]... mous". All these freedoms are important and should, as I have said, be cherished and defended.
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoAnd there are still several specific questions about what your "further regulation" of free speech would entail that you have refused to answer. So I suppose we will leave it at that. Generalissimo doesn't like the way Limbaugh exercises his right to free speech. Generalissimo thinks it is evidence that further regulation of Limbaugh's free speech is necessary. Generalissimo doesn't want to explain what that further regulation would be or what sanctions would come with it. Perhaps you were just trying to be controversial for the kick and didn't really mean it.
You asked me what it was that I considered to be "stirring up racial, ethnic, and religious hatred and harassment of groups or individuals" and I provided you with an answer, in specific referrence to Limbaugh's comments and conduct.
Originally posted by FMFReally? what a strange thing that is!
And there are still several specific questions about what your "further regulation" of free speech would entail that you have refused to answer. So I suppose we will leave it at that. Generalissimo doesn't like the way Limbaugh exercises his right to free speech. Generalissimo thinks it is evidence that further regulation of Limbaugh's free speech is necessary. ...[text shortened]... . Perhaps you were just trying to be controversial for the kick and didn't really mean it.
I remember it very well that I clearly announced my proposals with regards to regulation in addition to delineating the ultimate purpose of these measures and the sort of practices it aims to avoid.
Generalissimo doesn't want to explain what that further regulation would be or what sanctions would come with it. Perhaps you were just trying to be controversial for the kick and didn't really mean it.
I think Generalissimo is in fact very eager to explain further regulation, not only that, I think Generalissimo has already explained it countless times in the past. I think FMF on the other hand takes pleasure in parading his truculence and passive-agressiveness in the forums, something which he consistently pursues in his posts, nothing else explains all the histrionic accusations and idle speculation.
Originally posted by FMFI see we've reached a stalemate, one brought about by your own reluctance to go back a few pages and read my posts on the subject (my actual proposals).
And yet you are pointedly [b]not explaining or debating them. Your call.[/b]
I'd rather not waste my time on you, if all you're prepared to do is repeat, in a variety of ways, "no you didn't", no, you haven't", "no, you're wrong" ad nauseum.
Originally posted by FMFNope---if someone could enforce a ban the free speech rights of the Limbaughs AND the Daily Koz worshippers AND Westboro protesters of the world, that would be a good thing.
Me being "downright offensive" to you on this matter is something I am free to do, regardless of context; just as it you are free to call me "disgraceful" and to say you think the free speech of certain broadcasters should be curtailed or curbed. The fact that Limbaugh is free to express vitriolic thoughts, without the generalissimos of this world seeking to dec ...[text shortened]... impose what the generalissimos of this world like and don't like, is as "a healthy sign".