Restricting Violent Speech - Page 2

Takeda Shingen · 01-13-11, 08:39 PM

I think that enough of the guys on this forum, August, Haplo, Aramike and tater to name a few, have laid out the case that vitriol is not new and it is certainly not worse than it was in the past. Jefferson was accused of favoring gang rapes, cannibalism and forced incest during campaign season. I am guitly as anyone in being biased against the political through simply being burnt out on it, and I think that this is the key.

Jefferson didn't have 24-hour news channels, internet blogs and twitter. The 18th century voter wasn't bombarded by knee-jerk pundits and news anchors trying to make a name of themselves through 'gotcha' questions. It was the media that fed this vitriol in the name of ratings, and now that they created the monster they suddenly want to disown it. So no, restricting political speech accomplishes nothing, as the problem is still there. The media will continue it's frenzied search for the juiciest soundbytes, the biggest slip-up, the most inflamatory speech.

CaptainHaplo · 01-13-11, 08:50 PM

Wow Takeda - can you link some info on Jefferson that shows that? I have never heard it before and am interested where that data is.

I do agree with your point - its going to happen. Its unfortunate - but its not the cause of violence. IF - God forfend - IF civilians take up arms against the government, it will be because the government has failed the people, not because of some extremist on either side telling people to do it.

Tater - Congress and the Judiciary threw out "free speech" when they got involved in allowing Congress to try and institute incumbent re-election insurance oops sorry thats election "reform".

Takeda Shingen · 01-13-11, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Wow Takeda - can you link some info on Jefferson that shows that? I have never heard it before and am interested where that data is.

http://millercenter.org/academic/ame...ys/biography/3

Go to the second section entitled 'The Campaign and Election of 1800'. It's in the third paragraph:

Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes

Here's a collection of some others with reference links:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/29/so...ck-ads-circa-1

And someone posted a mock attack ad on YouTube using the various quotes. Very, very funny:

mookiemookie · 01-13-11, 09:30 PM

"Hatchet faced nutmeg dealer"

Aramike · 01-13-11, 09:34 PM

Here's my take, for what it's worth:

Speech shouldn't be abridged, I agree wholeheartedly with the Constitution on that one. We also have laws against conspiracy, accessory, etc so that covers those who would intentionally try to incite violence through speech.

Should there be more laws put in place? Nope - there are literally thousands and thousands of politicians, pundits, advocates, lobbyists, etc. engaging in political vitriol daily - and hardly any violence has occurred as a result (the latest incident was NOT motivated by such speech).

We scream loud and shout over each other because we can, it's part of the way of a free society built upon discourse. A part of me suspects that should such speech be repressed, an outlet will be gone perhaps leading to more violence, but that's just speculative.

In the final analysis there has been acts of violence in response to speech and policy for as long as there's been speech and policy. Those acts are thankfully rare. Nutjobs will be nutjobs regardless. Letting our lowest common denominators force a free society into even a mild repression of its most fundamental right should be out of the question.

August · 01-13-11, 09:37 PM

"Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames? Female chastity violated? Children writhing on the pike?"

Bet you didn't know you could vote for that stuff.

...and target icons are nothing. How about coffins?

TLAM Strike · 01-13-11, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

"Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames? Female chastity violated? Children writhing on the pike?"

Bet you didn't know you could vote for that stuff.

Damn, I think I got my campaign platform for when I run for office! Thanks August!!

tater · 01-13-11, 09:57 PM

No, guys, Skybird tells us that it's worse than ever. So forget about President number 2 suggesting President #3 would result in "children writhing on pikes," that was WAY more civil than asking to look at a birth certificate.

August · 01-13-11, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

No, guys, Skybird tells us that it's worse than ever. So forget about President number 2 suggesting President #3 would result in "children writhing on pikes," that was WAY more civil than asking to look at a birth certificate.

But Tater! It's Spiegel, it must be true!

tater · 01-13-11, 10:08 PM

Another funny youtube ad (Federalist (many of the same quotes in more context)).

Takeda Shingen · 01-13-11, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

Another funny youtube ad (Federalist (many of the same quotes in more context)).

I think that the actress is Mary Pickford.

Ducimus · 01-13-11, 10:13 PM

All i have to say is those that lead, or are in leadership positions, need to be mindful of what they say, and how they say it because what they say/ and do, has reaching effects.

Those who lead, should do so by example, and aspire to be respected for their abilities, and not due to just their position.

As to restricting political speech, im not sure what to think. On one hand, It is after all, illegal to say the word "bomb" in an airport. And those who give the order to do something violent (either directly, or implied), are just as culpable as the person executing the order.

On the other hand, the first amendment should not have it's integrity compromised. Once you've made it a bendable, and compromising, it becomes tantamount to putty that will be fixed and formed to fit whatever those in power want it to be. Then, we ALL lose.

So i guess it falls back to leadership, and those in leadership positions to rely on tact and to realize their role, and the effect of their words, actions and deeds in the big picture. It's a Pity we have to look to politicans for that. The scumbags.

CaptainHaplo · 01-13-11, 10:18 PM

Takeda - thank you - some really great insights that I was unaware of!

Sailor Steve · 01-13-11, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

What part of "Congress shall make no law" do the idiots in Washington have trouble understanding?

And yet it's against the law to threaten the life of any public official.

On the other hand the much-maligned-by-the-Right Justice Hugo Black used to use that exact same "What part of..." phrase when challenged on Separation.

After watching the YouTube clip (and several others), I stumbled upon some clips from the wonderful John Adams miniseries. One of them was of President Adams and Vice-President Jefferson discussing the Sedition Act of 1798, which actually made it illegal to write anything negative about the President.

Castout · 01-13-11, 10:40 PM

Since when political speech became hate speech?

US politics have degenerated from graceful and respectful to ugly and insulting and embarrassing since Obama came to office.

The Republicans found themselves as if sitting on a frying pan while watching Obama in the white house. They found themselves that their butts are on fire and they go all the way out using every media channel they have to start this ugly political division. Some people took it as it is some others naively bought everything that's been said.

Both parties need to realize they are supposed to work for the country's best interest rather than for their own political party. The feuding is childish and embarrassing and I view it with certain disgust and shows to great extent that even great many of American politicians are not so ready to be democratic and play politics gracefully with ethics. It wasn't like this before. When Bill Clinton took office the Republicans seemed to be able to accept that a democrat was now taking office. Stop inciting hate when making political speech. The enemy is not your fellow countrymen. Tough economy outlook and deteriorating character in general are your main problem.

One corrupt man in a country of a thousand may think he's privileged to be corrupt but sooner of later his behavior will be copied and suddenly the numbers multiply a hundred times and the country will become corrupt in general. Out of this deteriorating situation the general population soon will learn that character is unappreciated and may even impede one's advantage and copy the corrupt behavior they see in their leaders and the whole society will degenerate into chaos and crumbles. That's how great civilizations and empires came to an end. If only historians had been more detailed in their record keeping we would've learned this ages ago. There's motive to every historic fact. The facts get recorded the motives don't unfortunately.

disclaimer: But then again this is only my 2 cents worth.

01-13-11, 08:50 PM	#17
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Wow Takeda - can you link some info on Jefferson that shows that? I have never heard it before and am interested where that data is. I do agree with your point - its going to happen. Its unfortunate - but its not the cause of violence. IF - God forfend - IF civilians take up arms against the government, it will be because the government has failed the people, not because of some extremist on either side telling people to do it. Tater - Congress and the Judiciary threw out "free speech" when they got involved in allowing Congress to try and institute incumbent re-election insurance oops sorry thats election "reform". __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

01-13-11, 09:30 PM	#19
mookiemookie Navy Seal Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 9,404 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 1	"Hatchet faced nutmeg dealer" __________________ They don’t think it be like it is, but it do. Want more U-boat Kaleun portraits for your SH3 Commander Profiles? Download the SH3 Commander Portrait Pack here.

01-13-11, 09:37 PM	#21
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,197 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	"Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames? Female chastity violated? Children writhing on the pike?" Bet you didn't know you could vote for that stuff. ...and target icons are nothing. How about coffins? __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

01-13-11, 10:18 PM	#28
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Takeda - thank you - some really great insights that I was unaware of! __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

01-13-11, 10:40 PM	#30
Castout Silent Hunter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Jakarta Posts: 4,794 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 6	Since when political speech became hate speech? US politics have degenerated from graceful and respectful to ugly and insulting and embarrassing since Obama came to office. The Republicans found themselves as if sitting on a frying pan while watching Obama in the white house. They found themselves that their butts are on fire and they go all the way out using every media channel they have to start this ugly political division. Some people took it as it is some others naively bought everything that's been said. Both parties need to realize they are supposed to work for the country's best interest rather than for their own political party. The feuding is childish and embarrassing and I view it with certain disgust and shows to great extent that even great many of American politicians are not so ready to be democratic and play politics gracefully with ethics. It wasn't like this before. When Bill Clinton took office the Republicans seemed to be able to accept that a democrat was now taking office. Stop inciting hate when making political speech. The enemy is not your fellow countrymen. Tough economy outlook and deteriorating character in general are your main problem. One corrupt man in a country of a thousand may think he's privileged to be corrupt but sooner of later his behavior will be copied and suddenly the numbers multiply a hundred times and the country will become corrupt in general. Out of this deteriorating situation the general population soon will learn that character is unappreciated and may even impede one's advantage and copy the corrupt behavior they see in their leaders and the whole society will degenerate into chaos and crumbles. That's how great civilizations and empires came to an end. If only historians had been more detailed in their record keeping we would've learned this ages ago. There's motive to every historic fact. The facts get recorded the motives don't unfortunately. disclaimer: But then again this is only my 2 cents worth. __________________ My blog: http://exposingsingapore.wordpress.com/ Last edited by Castout; 01-13-11 at 11:04 PM.

01-13-11, 08:39 PM	#16
Takeda Shingen Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 8,643 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	I think that enough of the guys on this forum, August, Haplo, Aramike and tater to name a few, have laid out the case that vitriol is not new and it is certainly not worse than it was in the past. Jefferson was accused of favoring gang rapes, cannibalism and forced incest during campaign season. I am guitly as anyone in being biased against the political through simply being burnt out on it, and I think that this is the key. Jefferson didn't have 24-hour news channels, internet blogs and twitter. The 18th century voter wasn't bombarded by knee-jerk pundits and news anchors trying to make a name of themselves through 'gotcha' questions. It was the media that fed this vitriol in the name of ratings, and now that they created the monster they suddenly want to disown it. So no, restricting political speech accomplishes nothing, as the problem is still there. The media will continue it's frenzied search for the juiciest soundbytes, the biggest slip-up, the most inflamatory speech.

01-13-11, 09:34 PM	#20
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	Here's my take, for what it's worth: Speech shouldn't be abridged, I agree wholeheartedly with the Constitution on that one. We also have laws against conspiracy, accessory, etc so that covers those who would intentionally try to incite violence through speech. Should there be more laws put in place? Nope - there are literally thousands and thousands of politicians, pundits, advocates, lobbyists, etc. engaging in political vitriol daily - and hardly any violence has occurred as a result (the latest incident was NOT motivated by such speech). We scream loud and shout over each other because we can, it's part of the way of a free society built upon discourse. A part of me suspects that should such speech be repressed, an outlet will be gone perhaps leading to more violence, but that's just speculative. In the final analysis there has been acts of violence in response to speech and policy for as long as there's been speech and policy. Those acts are thankfully rare. Nutjobs will be nutjobs regardless. Letting our lowest common denominators force a free society into even a mild repression of its most fundamental right should be out of the question.

01-13-11, 09:57 PM	#23
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	No, guys, Skybird tells us that it's worse than ever. So forget about President number 2 suggesting President #3 would result in "children writhing on pikes," that was WAY more civil than asking to look at a birth certificate.

01-13-11, 10:08 PM	#25
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Another funny youtube ad (Federalist (many of the same quotes in more context)).

01-13-11, 10:13 PM	#27
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	All i have to say is those that lead, or are in leadership positions, need to be mindful of what they say, and how they say it because what they say/ and do, has reaching effects. Those who lead, should do so by example, and aspire to be respected for their abilities, and not due to just their position. As to restricting political speech, im not sure what to think. On one hand, It is after all, illegal to say the word "bomb" in an airport. And those who give the order to do something violent (either directly, or implied), are just as culpable as the person executing the order. On the other hand, the first amendment should not have it's integrity compromised. Once you've made it a bendable, and compromising, it becomes tantamount to putty that will be fixed and formed to fit whatever those in power want it to be. Then, we ALL lose. So i guess it falls back to leadership, and those in leadership positions to rely on tact and to realize their role, and the effect of their words, actions and deeds in the big picture. It's a Pity we have to look to politicans for that. The scumbags.