"Knock a Jew in the oven! Three throws for one dollar!"

[Sane]

Humor honoring one's heritage?

AP story on click2houston.com (http://www.click2houston.com/education/3034512/detail.html)

Edited to remove copyrighted material available at the link above.

[American]

Originally posted by Sane
Humor honoring one's heritage?

The student editor who decided to use the cartoon is Jewish. He told The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., that humor is a way to honor his own relatives who died in the Holocaust.


Oh I get it!

Ha! He's a kidder alright!

[Cleopatra]

When my grandmother was alive and we were cooking together every time we put something in the oven we made a joke. Especially when we cooked pork in the oven.
" Let's put the Jew in the oven" she said. I think that she was trying until her last moment to overcome the trauma. Although I have made this jokes many times I don't like seing them on a poster or on TV.

[Dorian Gray]

I am tired of people justifying stupid, sick and inappropriate humor by claiming that they are part of the group being made fun of, "so it's okay"! It's not okay, no matter who the hell you are.

Cleo's grandmother doing it in her kitchen is okay. She said it in her house, it's her right, etc. Mass distribution of your 'commentary' is legal, I suppose, but it's WAYYYY out of line and can't really be justified, in my opinion.

Someone could technically mock anyone in any way for any reason in any language and justify it by saying 'I am a human too, so it's okay.'

[Tony]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
It's not okay, no matter who the hell you are.

Why is it not OK?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tony


Why is it not OK? Because Tony when you see those jokes in the air, when the whole community watches them, if you are related to this tragedy and you see people passing by and giggling you cannot possibly take it as a joke.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Sane
The student editor who decided to use the cartoon is Jewish. He told The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., that humor is a way to honor his own relatives who died in the Holocaust.


Unbelievable. One wonders how else he chooses to honor his relatives.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Because Tony when you see those jokes in the air, when the whole community watches them, if you are related to this tragedy and you see people passing by and giggling you cannot possibly take it as a joke.

That doesn't really explain why it's not ok, it just explains that some people would be offended.

[I'll_buy_that]

Because it's not funny.

and besides, it is so untimely and irrelevant that it should have been tossed

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tony


That doesn't really explain why it's not ok, it just explains that some people would be offended. This is exactly because why it is not ok. Because some people would be offended.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
This is exactly because why it is not ok. Because some people would be offended.

That's not a reason to limit freespeech. The freedom to offend is fundamental to free-speech.

Should Howard Stern be censored because he offends people? Should democrats be censored because they offend Bush supporters?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tony


That's not a reason to limit freespeech. The freedom to offend is fundamental to free-speech. I think that it's essential to distinguish jerkish behavior from free speech. In my world if somebody cannot distinguish that he shouldn't have the right to vote.

[Cleopatra]

Have in mind Tony that I do not wish such things to be banned or anything. I just criticize them and I consider those who do such things and those who justify them as jerks.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I think that it's essential to distinguish jerkish behavior from free speech.

"Jerk behavior" is freespeech!!

In my world if somebody cannot distinguish that he shouldn't have the right to vote.

Your world is a fuct up and backwards place.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tony
[
"Jerk behavior" is freespeech!! No it is not. Jerk behavior is abuse of free speech.
Your world is a fuct up and backwards place. Maybe. But it is an adult world in the strict platonic sense.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony


That's not a reason to limit freespeech. The freedom to offend is fundamental to free-speech.

Should Howard Stern be censored because he offends people? Should democrats be censored because they offend Bush supporters?

That would be a valid argument if someone were proposing that the government should step in and prevent them from saying it.

I think the bulk of the opinion is that they shouldn't have said it but that it is a matter of simple civility. My next door neighbor is ugly, and quite frankly strikes me as a moron of the first magnitude. I would not tell him this and I don't consider it a limitation on free speech (because, again, no one is telling me I can't say it) but because I wish to remain civil with him. Likewise, I think that the people who ran that cartoon had every right to do so, but it was a bad, bad idea.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Have in mind Tony that I do not wish such things to be banned or anything. I just criticize them and I consider those who do such things and those who justify them as jerks.

That's alright. Consider them jerks, *******, dickheads..consider them whatever, but don't try to take away their right to say it.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Originally posted by Tony


That's not a reason to limit freespeech. The freedom to offend is fundamental to free-speech.

Should Howard Stern be censored because he offends people? Should democrats be censored because they offend Bush supporters?
I agree with with Tony. It's very "tasteless" and not very funny to boot.

We need things like this to remind us when we encounterer quality.

Charlie (with all the jews killed through the ages, what we have now are the smartest, and most survival conscieous "cream of crop") Monoxide

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
No it is not. Jerk behavior is abuse of free speech.


How it is abuse?

Maybe. But it is an adult world in the strict platonic sense.

No, it's a childish world where mere words hurt.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

That would be a valid argument if someone were proposing that the government should step in and prevent them from saying it.



What else am I to assume when some says it's "not ok"?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tony


That's alright. Consider them jerks, a**hole, dickheads..consider them whatever, but don't try to take away their right to say it. This is the slight difference. I do not wish to take their right to say whatever that passes through their empty head but there are some environments --like universities-- that such things should not be acceptable and once they occur those who are involved must shut the f8888 up instead of trying to justify their stupidity or better kicked off on the street where they can say whatever they wish.

As Plato said only vulgar people need the Law to dictate them an appropriate social behavior and they attempt to justify their stupidity or take advantage of the freedom Law provides.

I don't know whether he had the liberals in mind. Liberals, what a silly term but this is a topic for another thread.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony



What else am I to assume when some says it's "not ok"?

Saying something is morally wrong is a very different thing from saying it ought to be illegal.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
This is the slight difference. I do not wish to take their right to say whatever that passes through their empty head but there are some environments --like universities-- that such things should not be acceptable and once they occur those who are involved must shut the f8888 up instead of trying to justify their stupidity or better kicked off on the street where they can say whatever they wish.


No, universities are government property. Government property is the LAST place on which restrictions on freespeech occur.

As Plato said only vulgar people need the Law to dictate them an appropriate social behavior and they attempt to justify their stupidity or take advantage of the freedom Law it provides.

This comes with the built in assumption that vulgarity is inherantly wrong. I think otherwise.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tony
How it is abuse? Because freedom of speech exists in order we communicate freely our ideas. Freedom of speech doesn't exist so as wankers take advantage of it.
No, it's a childish world where mere words hurt. What would hurt you then? To see a Jew burning in an oven? Do you remember a year or so ago when some idiots in UK covered a muslim dead lady with bacon? How is that? Should we take this as a criticize towards Islam?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tony
No, universities are government property. Government property is the LAST place on which restrictions on freespeech occur. You are wrong. They might be government property but they serve a specific purpose. Institutions that serve a purpose should have rules that punish jerkish behaviors.
This comes with the built in assumption that vulgarity is inherantly wrong. I think otherwise. Ha! This is the most serious of all the arguments you posted. But yet by the moment you start fighting for your right to be vulgar you are not vulgar anymore. This is not what those jerks did.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Because freedom of speech exists in order we communicate freely our ideas. Freedom of speech doesn't exist so as wankers take advantage of it.


Wrong, the Supreme Court upheald, in the Larry Flint vs. Jerry Fallwell case that offensive speech is free-speech.

What would hurt you then?

Getting hit in the face with a brick would hurt.

To see a Jew burning in an oven?

To actually SEE, in person, a jew burning in an oven? I don't know if it would "hurt" me, but it would piss me off and I'd do everything in my power to stop it.

Do you remember a year or so ago when some idiots in UK covered a muslim dead lady with bacon?

No, I don't remember that. And I don't really care, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is free speech.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You are wrong. They might be government property but they serve a specific purpose. Institutions that serve a purpose should have rules that punish jerkish behaviors.


So the government should punish jerkish behavior? Should the government punish anti-american behavior too?

Ha! This is the most serious of all the arguments you posted. But yet by the moment you start fighting for your right to be vulgar you are not vulgar anymore. This is not what those jerks did.

What's your point?

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Because freedom of speech exists in order we communicate freely our ideas. Freedom of speech doesn't exist so as wankers take advantage of it.And who is to determine who are wankers and who is taking advantage? You? Me?

Free speech doesn't work if it only counts for speech that the majority agrees with.

Free speech meant that people could argue, for example, against slavery when the majority were for it. Many people then might have called the abolitionists wankers (or the contemporary equivalent). So should they have been told to "shut up" because their speech offended many others?

People who don't "get" free speech often make this mistake.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

This reminds me of "Insult Comedy". I don't find it particularly funny, and for some reason it's considered to be a particularly Jewish form of humor.

Putting something like that in a newspaper is rather tasteless, but it's not morally wrong.

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Putting something like that in a newspaper is rather tasteless, but it's not morally wrong. Yes, I meant to add that I, too, find it very tasteless and not at all funny. But that's a far cry from saying he shouldn't be allowed to say or do it or that he should be punished for it. Maybe someone should just smack him upside the head...that would be THEIR freedom of speech in action!

[c0rbin]

Agreed.

People are free to make asses of themselves. I prefer it, that way identifying the asses becomes ever so much easier.

Since there are some in this thread who are not offended by this tasteless stab at humor, using such a standard is not universal enough of a test for free speech.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Because freedom of speech exists in order we communicate freely our ideas. Freedom of speech doesn't exist so as wankers take advantage of it.


I have to chime in with an objection to htis comment as well. While I will agree that wankers taking advantage of free speech isn't the point of free speech, it is, however, the price of free speech.

If you are not willing to pay that price and let the jackasses of the world be jackasses, then you don't really have free speech. You are, however, fre to counter their speech with speech of your own if you wish, that's how it's supposed to work.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by wolfgirl
And who is to determine who are wankers and who is taking advantage? You? Me? Yes. You and me. Who do you wish to determine it. Since everybody that posted here agrees that the behavior was jerkish and since we post from different parts of the world that means that it is an obvious jerkish behavior.

Free speech doesn't work if it only counts for speech that the majority agrees with.

Free speech meant that people could argue, for example, against slavery when the majority were for it. Many people then might have called the abolitionists wankers (or the contemporary equivalent). So should they have been told to "shut up" because their speech offended many others? Instead of lecturing on free speech please point to me which are the ideas those idiots want to spread or communicate so as the privilege covers them.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Tony

Wrong, the Supreme Court upheald, in the Larry Flint vs. Jerry Fallwell case that offensive speech is free-speech.

The court eventually ruled that the offensive speech, Jerry Fallwell winning the @sshole of the month award and having his face superimposed over the sphincter of some anonymous posterior, was political in nature precisely because it was awarded to Fallwell for his political views, and thus protected.

It’s hard to imagine this fitting the same criteria. It’s not political, it doesn’t advocate anything nor criticize anything, it is only offensive.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

So if I can get two people from different parts of the world to consider you an idiot, you are one?

Nonsense. You're an idiot no matter what anyone thinks.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I have to chime in with an objection to htis comment as well. While I will agree that wankers taking advantage of free speech isn't the point of free speech, it is, however, the price of free speech.

If you are not willing to pay that price and let the jackasses of the world be jackasses, then you don't really have free speech. You are, however, fre to counter their speech with speech of your own if you wish, that's how it's supposed to work. We cannot protect free speech pro-actively that is true but once a jerkish behavior is spotted we must act fast and put the jerks on the corner.

Sometimes we seem to forget that we are not in the 15th ce but in the 21th and we have accumulated a considerable social experience that enables us to distinguish jerkish behavior from free speech.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

There is no such distinction. Jerkish behavior is part of free speech. You can't forbid it without placing limits on the ability to freely express ideas.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
There is no such distinction.

According to Cleopatra, you don't deserve the right to vote:

I think that it's essential to distinguish jerkish behavior from free speech. In my world if somebody cannot distinguish that he shouldn't have the right to vote.

So much for that "social experience".

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
We cannot protect free speech pro-actively that is true but once a jerkish behavior is spotted we must act fast and put the jerks on the corner.So what if we determine that your behavior in trying to silence the jerks is jerkish itself? Shall you be shut up also?

Almost anything that anyone can say could potentially offend someone else. Must we all live in a kindergarten world where we go crying to our mommies if someone hurts our feelings? Or can we instead be grown-ups and let it roll off?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Obviously, Cleopatra is a jerk. She should be beaten with rods and covered in hot tar, and so should anyone who can't see the obvious truth that she's a jerk.

(Sadly, this point will be completely lost on her, as there's really no way to genuinely threaten her and she knows she's in no real danger. If she were at risk of being physically harmed by any random person who thought she was a jerk, she'd probably think differently...)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
We cannot protect free speech pro-actively that is true but once a jerkish behavior is spotted we must act fast and put the jerks on the corner.

I agree 100%, provided the means used to "put them in the corner" is to counter their jerkish behavior with our own words and deeds, rather than depending on the government to shut them up for us. The latter is just asking for trouble.

Sometimes we seem to forget that we are not in the 15th ce but in the 21th and we have accumulated a considerable social experience that enables us to distinguish jerkish behavior from free speech.

I respectfully disagree. We merely have different standards than in the 15th century. I doubt, except in the most extreme circumstances, you would find a lot of agreement between individuals on where free speech would end and jerkish behavior would begin. I do not trust any government to make that determination for me. That leaves countering jerkish behavior by calling the jerk on it, thus exercising my own free speech, as the only viable option

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by wolfgirl
So what if we determine that your behavior in trying to silence the jerks is jerkish itself? Shall you be shut up also?

First of all you didn't show me what ideas those idiots wanted to communicate.
Which were their ideas that we must not silence?

Once you show me that I will continue the dialogue.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I agree 100%, provided the means used to "put them in the corner" is to counter their jerkish behavior with our own words and deeds, rather than depending on the government to shut them up for us. The latter is just asking for trouble.

No the government should not interfere in that, also I don't wish a law that prohibits jerkish behavior. I believe though that there are certain institutions that must protect themselves. Once somebody does something jerkish he must be expelled by the community.

I respectfully disagree. We merely have different standards than in the 15th century. I doubt, except in the most extreme circumstances, you would find a lot of agreement between individuals on where free speech would end and jerkish behavior would begin. Ok this is the endless argument. The fact that it is difficult to determine what is jerkish and what is not it doesn't mean that it is impossible. Has anybody in this very thread told us what is jerkish? How we all agreed on that? I agree that the perception of what is a jerkish behavior changes over time but thank God we live only for 75 years ( the average), the new generations will determine in their turn what is jerkish and what is not.

I do not trust any government to make that determination for me. That leaves countering jerkish behavior by calling the jerk on it, thus exercising my own free speech, as the only viable option This is an american thing that's why I urge you people to realize that it's not the 15th ce. Get over it! It drags you back as a society. Not to say that american governments feed you with the illusion that the freedom of your expression is sacred and they pass over your head every sort of manipulative law.

It's not freedom to let the jerks free to do whatever they wish, it's a fascism of the worse kind.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


No the government should not interfere in that, also I don't wish a law that prohibits jerkish behavior. I believe though that there are certain institutions that must protect themselves. Once somebody does something jerkish he must be expelled by the community.

Ok this is the endless argument. The fact that it is difficult to determine what is jerkish and what is not it doesn't mean that it is impossible. Has anybody in this very thread told us what is jerkish? How we all agreed on that? I agree that the perception of what is a jerkish behavior changes over time but thank God we live only for 75 years ( the average), the new generations will determine in their turn what is jerkish and what is not.

This is an american thing that's why I urge you people to realize that it's not the 15th ce. Get over it! It drags you back as a society. Not to say that american governments feed you with the illusion that the freedom of your expression is sacred and they pass over your head every sort of manipulative law.

It's not freedom to let the jerks free to do whatever they wish, it's a fascism of the worse kind.

i will defend with my life a jerks right to say what ever jerkish thing he wishes to say. your "right" to not be offended is superceded by the inalienable right to expression.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


No the government should not interfere in that, also I don't wish a law that prohibits jerkish behavior. I believe though that there are certain institutions that must protect themselves. Once somebody does something jerkish he must be expelled by the community.


And without government, how does the community expel the jerk?

This is an american thing that's why I urge you people to realize that it's not the 15th ce.

It anyone's living in the 15ce it's YOU. You want to punish people for offending your sensibilities; you can't get more backward than that.

Get over it! It drags you back as a society.

Freedom of expression drags us back as a society? WTF!! Am I to assume minority rights also drag us back as a society?

It's not freedom to let the jerks free to do whatever they wish, it's a fascism of the worse kind.

I agree, punishing so-called "offensive" laguage is fascism.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


i will defend with my life a jerks right to say what ever jerkish thing he wishes to say. your "right" to not be offended is superceded by the inalienable right to expression. Me too. I will defend the jerks to say whatever they wish what I do not intend to defend is a jerkish behavior. This is what we discuss here.
You ( not only you) confuse behavior with ideas. Well, it's not the same thing.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


No the government should not interfere in that, also I don't wish a law that prohibits jerkish behavior. I believe though that there are certain institutions that must protect themselves. Once somebody does something jerkish he must be expelled by the community.

I think banishment is a bit harsh for being a jerk, don't you?;)

Seriously, though, if you are saying it's not the governments job to counter jerkish behavior and that social pressure is the best way to deal with with jerks, then we are for really arguing the same point. But I am glad you clarified that because I read your comments differently.

Ok this is the endless argument. The fact that it is difficult to determine what is jerkish and what is not it doesn't mean that it is impossible. Has anybody in this very thread told us what is jerkish? How we all agreed on that? I agree that the perception of what is a jerkish behavior changes over time but thank God we live only for 75 years ( the average), the new generations will determine in their turn what is jerkish and what is not.

This thread is a very good case in point. I don't think that you could get a lot of agreement on this thread on where the line was crossed (or even IF the line was crossed) and if so, what, if anything, should be done about it. Jerkish behavior is very much in the eye of the beholder and thus more a matter of morality than law. People who feel that the cartoon was wrong can criticize the paper, ostracize the artist, protest and do all sorts of things to put pressure on the publisher of the cartoon. It is only when somoene proposes that the government be brought in to silence the paper that a line has been crossed, that ought not be crossed. You can't legislate right and wrong.

This is an american thing that's why I urge you people to realize that it's not the 15th ce. Get over it! It drags you back as a society. Not to say that american governments feed you with the illusion that the freedom of your expression is sacred and they pass over your head every sort of manipulative law.

It's not freedom to let the jerks free to do whatever they wish, it's a fascism of the worse kind.

Frankly, my opposition to governemnt stepping in, in situations like this, has nothing whatsoever to do with our Constitution, or anything else distinctly American. It has to do with my view of human nature. Power corrupts. Governemnts the world over are filled with people who are dedicated to preverving and enhancing their own power. THAT is something that hasn't changed since the first governments were formed and probably never will change. Allowing those people to illegalize behaviors that they deem "jerkish" gives them a power that they can abuse way too easily. It gives them a tool that I do not wish them to have.

[Dorian Gray]

Should Howard Stern be censored because he offends people? Should democrats be censored because they offend Bush supporters? Howard Stern IS being censored! Unless you don't consider massive fines censorship. Democrats ARE being censored because they offend Bush. Unless you don't consider being held blocks away in isolation censorship.

That's alright. Consider them jerks, a**hole, dickheads..consider them whatever, but don't try to take away their right to say it.
I have not said this guy should be censored. I literally said that what he did was legal, but out of line. (I also don't think Stern or Democrats should be censored either.) So don't put words in my mouth, or anything else for that matter.

Why is it not OK? You mother is a big slutty whore. It's okay, I have a mother too. Get it now?

That would be a valid argument if someone were proposing that the government should step in and prevent them from saying it. Proposing? We are way past the proposal stage. $500,000 fines, erasure of recorded Scalia speeches and being held blocks away from a Bush speech are already being practiced today.

No, it's a childish world where mere words hurt. You are obviously the biggest egomaniacal moron this side of Limbaugh. You probably think having sex with children is okay too.

What else am I to assume when some says it's "not ok"? I guess you are to stop reading the rest of the post and immediately begin composing a reply based on your guess of what it 'means', making an ass of yourself in the process. Oh, wait. That's what you DID. What you should actually do is read the part where I said what he did was legal but out of line, and realize that if you are reasonable, you need not make any assumptions because it's spelled out for you .


To repeat: no one is saying this guy's stuff should be illegal or banned, just that it is tasteless and out of line. Stop strawmanning us to death.

[Dorian Gray]

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Me too. I will defend the jerks to say whatever they wish what I do not intend to defend is a jerkish behavior. This is what we discuss here.
You ( not only you) confuse behavior with ideas. Well, it's not the same thing.

and how exactly do we separate the idea from the behavior? how can ideas be conveyed without behavior? I am not the confused one on this issue.

[Dorian Gray]

how can ideas be conveyed without behavior? Well, there are these things called 'books'.......

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Well, there are these things called 'books'.......

last time i checked, writing a book was a behavior.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I think banishment is a bit harsh for being a jerk, don't you?;) Finally somebody here got my drift :D Seriously, there can be levels in the punishment. Work with me to make my proposal better.

Seriously, though, if you are saying it's not the governments job to counter jerkish behavior and that social pressure is the best way to deal with with jerks, then we are for really arguing the same point. But I am glad you clarified that because I read your comments differently. This is what I think. If jerkish behaviors cannot be marginalized in groups like universities or JREF or whatever, then we have a problem. I understand that we might make mistakes in judging what is jerkish and what it is not BUT I am pro groups that show a determination to marginalize silly behaviors. Free-speech has ended up like a chewing gum. Every sort of idiot that insults others with his behavior tries to preach about free speech. Enough.

This thread is a very good case in point. I don't think that you could get a lot of agreement on this thread on where the line was crossed (or even IF the line was crossed) and if so, what, if anything, should be done about it. Jerkish behavior is very much in the eye of the beholder and thus more a matter of morality than law. I agree with all the observations above. Exactly. It is a matter of morality.This word that so many people in this forum are afraid of. Skeptics have their own morality, academics have their own morality, every group has a morality. What makes it difficult is that most of you are Americans :) I am not so serious. Wrong. I am serious but I type this smiling. American people have a rather twisted idea of what free speech means. Not to mention that generally they confuse the notion of free speech with behaviors. Look at this thread.

People who feel that the cartoon was wrong can criticize the paper, ostracize the artist, protest and do all sorts of things to put pressure on the publisher of the cartoon. It is only when somoene proposes that the government be brought in to silence the paper that a line has been crossed, that ought not be crossed. You can't legislate right and wrong. The responsibles for the satire were some students. They should apologize to their group as it was asked. I don't see any problem with that.


Frankly, my opposition to governemnt stepping in, in situations like this, has nothing whatsoever to do with our Constitution, or anything else distinctly American. It has to do with my view of human nature. Power corrupts. Governemnts the world over are filled with people who are dedicated to preverving and enhancing their own power. THAT is something that hasn't changed since the first governments were formed and probably never will change. Allowing those people to illegalize behaviors that they deem "jerkish" gives them a power that they can abuse way too easily. It gives them a tool that I do not wish them to have. Agreed. Yes power corrupts but the cure is not to be afraid to govern. I am a platonist ( edited to add: or should I say a Straussean :p ). I believe that some people are smarter and stronger and they are not so easily corrupted, some people are leaders and they are born to rule and lead.

Where is Frank Newgent to fry me now:p Let me notify him of that.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Finally somebody here got my drift :D Seriously, there can be levels in the punishment. Work with me to make my proposal better.

This is what I think. If jerkish behaviors cannot be marginalized in groups like universities or JREF or whatever, then we have a problem. I understand that we might make mistakes in judging what is jerkish and what it is not BUT I am pro groups that show a determination to marginalize silly behaviors. Free-speech has ended up like a chewing gum. Every sort of idiot that insults others with his behavior tries to preach about free speech. Enough.

I agree with all the observations above. Exactly. It is a matter of morality.This word that so many people in this forum are afraid of. Skeptics have their own morality, academics have their own morality, every group has a morality. What makes it difficult is that most of you are Americans :) I am not so serious. Wrong. I am serious but I type this smiling. American people have a rather twisted idea of what free speech means. Not to mention that generally they confuse the notion of free speech with behaviors. Look at this thread.

The responsibles for the satire were some students. They should apologize to their group as it was asked. I don't see any problem with that.


Agreed. Yes power corrupts but the cure is not to be afraid to govern. I am a platonist ( edited to add: or should I say a Straussean :p ). I believe that some people are smarter and stronger and they are not so easily corrupted, some people are leaders born to rule.

Where is Frank Newgent to fry me now:p Let me notify him of that.

i completely disagree with nearly everything you have typed in this thread. maybe it would help if you give a clear, concise defintion of what you consider "behavior" and "speech" in this context, and the way in which you delineate them.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


i completely disagree with nearly everything you have typed in this thread. I understand and thank you for being polite about that. At least will you explore it as an alternative ?

edited to add after seing the edited post

I don't need to define anything. Those who think that this incident is not a silly behavior but it has a hidden meaning, those who believe that those students had some ideas they wanted to spread so this is why they must be protected by free speech they must show those ideas to me because I do not see them.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I understand and thank you for being polite about that. At least will you explore it as an alternative ?
sorry, i posted to quickly. i ammended my post asking you to define more clearly what you mean by "speech" and "behavior" in this context. i'm more than willing to explore what you are saying, but i will need more information before i can change my position.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Howard Stern IS being censored! Unless you don't consider massive fines censorship. Democrats ARE being censored because they offend Bush. Unless you don't consider being held blocks away in isolation censorship.


This is irrelevant. I asked should they be censored. Should they?

I have not said this guy should be censored. I literally said that what he did was legal, but out of line. (I also don't think Stern or Democrats should be censored either.) So don't put words in my mouth, or anything else for that matter.

My comment wasn't address to you.

You mother is a big slutty whore. It's okay, I have a mother too. Get it now?

You think that would offend me? Bwahahahahahahahahaha.

You are obviously the biggest egomaniacal moron this side of Limbaugh. You probably think having sex with children is okay too.

LOL You don't even have a clue what I was talking about.

I guess you are to stop reading the rest of the post and immediately begin composing a reply based on your guess of what it 'means', making an ass of yourself in the process. Oh, wait. That's what you DID.

If I made an ass out of myself, I guess you made a kunt out of yourself.

[EdipisReks]

let me put forward my view on freedom of expression. any behavior to express an idea is acceptable up until the behavior infringes on the rights of another. as "not being offended" isn't, in my view, a right, it does not supercede what some might consider boorish behavior.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Tony

If I made an ass out of myself, I guess you made a kunt out of yourself.

indeed. Dorian Gray is about to join Interesting Ian on my ignore list.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tony


And without government, how does the community expel the jerk? I think that I replied to that.

It anyone's living in the 15ce it's YOU. You want to punish people for offending your sensibilities; you can't get more backward than that. No they do not offend my personal sensibilities. First they make a very bad use of a right that was designed to protect ideas and not stupid bahevior and second they offend the morality of my group. I belong to an academic group. If those things occur in universities or educational institutions what somebody might expct from areas or groups that levels or illiteracy are high.

Freedom of expression drags us back as a society? WTF!! Am I to assume minority rights also drag us back as a society? Tony, where did I say that? It's your inability to distinguish between silly behaviors and ideas that drag your society back.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I think that I replied to that.
Tony, where did I say that? It's your inability to distinguish between silly behaviors and ideas that drag your society back.

could you please explain how you differentiate behavior and speech/ideas?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
let me put forward my view on freedom of expression. any behavior to express an idea is acceptable up until the behavior infringes on the rights of another. as "not being offended" isn't, in my view, a right, it does not supercede what some might consider boorish behavior. You are making it difficult with no reason. I asked a simple thing. Show me if there are any ideas that hide in this specific incident.

P.S.and not to Edipis Reks

If the name calling continues I will leave the thread, I am sorry.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I think that I replied to that.


When? Who were you addressing?

Tony, where did I say that?

I never said you did. I was asking a question.

It's your inability to distinguish between silly behaviors and ideas that drag your society back.


"Silly behavior" is often subjective but anyway...

I can distinguish between silly behavior and ideas, and so can most people of mature age. What are you talking about?

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You are making it difficult with no reason. I asked a simple thing. Show me if there are any ideas that hide in this specific incident.


i don't have enough information on the incident, but i imagine that the instigator clearly had an idea, which apparently was honoring his people. i'm not quite sure what he meant by that, but i would need more than a short blurb to really understand the situation, and i would certainly need more information before i condemned the person. as i believe in the freedom of expression absolutely (and it is one of the few absolutes that i believe in), i will always give the benefit of the doubt to the person in question. since i have no specific information, i can only argue based on generalities. if you have more information about what happened, please post it.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
If the name calling continues I will leave the thread, I am sorry. That's the idea, m'dear.

[Cleopatra]

To EdipisReks


I am sorry but I see that you dodge the issue and you attempt to engage me in circular arguments. This is not necessary because our discussion is theoritical and it is based on an incident we read in a paper.

Both of us have the same information and we judge based on that information this is the important.

To Wrath of Swarm.

Name calling is a silly and childish behavior but I didn't say that I would report them I said that I would leave. Do you see wrong in that too?

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Agreed. Yes power corrupts but the cure is not to be afraid to govern. I am a platonist ( edited to add: or should I say a Straussean :p ). I believe that some people are smarter and stronger and they are not so easily corrupted, some people are leaders and they are born to rule and lead.

Where is Frank Newgent to fry me now:p Let me notify him of that.


Quis custodiet or is that too obvious? ;) Oh and Strauss, ah yes, the Vienna waltzes, wonderful.

[EdipisReks]

one thing about this specific incidence that i'm confused on is where exactly the "behavior" vs. the "the idea". a political cartoon was posted. political cartoons have long been an explicit form of speech. how is posting a political cartoon, in this context, a "behavior" and not "pure speech"?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Nikk
Quis custodiet or is that too obvious? ;) It is. We will have our eyes on them. Our American friends thought that owning arms was the solution. Have you heard of anybody attempting to kill Ascroft for abusing his power? I haven't.
Oh and Strauss, ah yes, the Vienna waltzes, wonderful. Hmmm What do we have here? I was expecting something about jewish conspiracies. :p

I think that you gentlemen knock me out for tonight.

[crimresearch]

Lessee...

Dick Gregory once said something to the effect of 'If anything I've said here has offended someone, maybe that's what I am here for'
Guess we'll just have to strip him of his right to vote....

Oh, and he is also one of those misguided minorities who thinks that being a minority gives him the right to decide what is and isn't offensive or appropriate for minorities to say (as you might be able to tell from the title of one of his early books)...guess we should ban him from the univesities...Oh wait!! We already tried that, and damn if he didn't get an audience, and some respect somewhere else.

Oh well, at least the JREF forumites know what 'good' minorities should act like and say, if they know what's best for them

:rolleyes:


Paul

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
To EdipisReks


I am sorry but I see that you dodge the issue and you attempt to engage me in circular arguments.

what? what have i dodged? i defended the persons right to post whatever political cartoon the newspaper deemed fit for publication. i then asked you to explain your differentiation between a "behavior" and "speech". where is the dodge? if anything you are dodging, as you have yet to explain the difference between "behavior" and "speech" in this context.

This is not necessary because our discussion is theoritical and it is based on an incident we read in a paper.


now THAT is a dodge.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

To quote Cartman and Kyle:

"Hey, Kyle? You know all those times I called you a stupid Jew? I take it back - you're not a Jew."

"Yes I am, Cartman, I am a Jew!"

"Kyle, don't be so hard on yourself!"

[Skeptic]

Because freedom of speech exists in order we communicate freely our ideas. Freedom of speech doesn't exist so as wankers take advantage of it.

No, Cleo, you're wrong here. Free speech exists precisely so that EVERYBODY--wankers included--could take advantage of it. The price of having the right to hear what (say) Bertrand Russell had to say about Christianity or Communism even if it offended Christians or Communists is having to endure jerks that think a caricature of jews in the ovens are funny.

What would hurt you then? To see a Jew burning in an oven?

At the risk of stating the obvious, there's a difference between a jew burning in the oven and a CARICAUTRE of a jew burning in the oven. One is murder, the other merely tasteless.

Do you remember a year or so ago when some idiots in UK covered a muslim dead lady with bacon? How is that? Should we take this as a criticize towards Islam?

They committed a crime--desecration of a body. But again stating the obvious, to cover a Muslim's body with bacon is not the same thing as SPEAKING about covering a Muslim's body with bacon (presuming that the latter isn't a clear incitment to do so).

[Skeptic]

Because freedom of speech exists in order we communicate freely our ideas. Freedom of speech doesn't exist so as wankers take advantage of it.

No, Cleo, you're wrong here. Free speech exists precisely so that EVERYBODY--wankers included--could take advantage of it. The price of having the right to hear what (say) Bertrand Russell had to say about Christianity or Communism even if it offended Christians or Communists is having to endure jerks that think a caricature of jews in the ovens are funny even if it offends jews.

What would hurt you then? To see a Jew burning in an oven?

At the risk of stating the obvious, there's a difference between a jew burning in the oven and a CARICAUTRE of a jew burning in the oven. One is murder, the other merely tasteless.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

This is what I think. If jerkish behaviors cannot be marginalized in groups like universities or JREF or whatever, then we have a problem. I understand that we might make mistakes in judging what is jerkish and what it is not BUT I am pro groups that show a determination to marginalize silly behaviors. Free-speech has ended up like a chewing gum. Every sort of idiot that insults others with his behavior tries to preach about free speech. Enough.

Well, yeah, they likely don't see their action as wrong (if they did, they wouldn't have done it). Everyone is entitled to free speech, no one is entitled to be free of the natural consequences of that speech. Insults fall under tahta too. If somoene wants to insult others he has that right (like I said before, it's the price we pay) but he has to be willing to take the heat generated by his comments. Personally, i am willing to live witht he fact that someone can insult me because it gives me the freedom to say what I want to say.

I agree with all the observations above. Exactly. It is a matter of morality.This word that so many people in this forum are afraid of. Skeptics have their own morality, academics have their own morality, every group has a morality. What makes it difficult is that most of you are Americans :) I am not so serious. Wrong. I am serious but I type this smiling. American people have a rather twisted idea of what free speech means. Not to mention that generally they confuse the notion of free speech with behaviors. Look at this thread.

Yes. My point is that Morality varies from group to group so any attempt to legistalte it (beyond a few very basic principles like don't kill people or steal their stuff) is doomed to failure. If I go home tonight and eat a big juicy bacon cheeseburger followed by a beer, I have offended the moral sensibilities of Hindus (because it's beef), Jews (bacon), Muslims(ditto plus the beer), PETA members(meat in general), and Mormons (beer). However my morals are perfectly okey dokey with it. Now if I were a member of any of those groups, it would be fine for them to sanction me for my act (since I would be a member of those groups by choosing to abide by their rules), however since I am not any of those things, they have no right to try to force me to follow their morals. THey can try to CONVINCE me all they want, but not force me. The point of this ramble, I guess, is that morality is an individual thing, not something that can be forced on others.

The responsibles for the satire were some students. They should apologize to their group as it was asked. I don't see any problem with that.
Perhaps they should. I personally think they should. However, that is for their own consciences to decide. The offended students are free to try to influence that decsion, of course, but ultimately it is up to the moral code of the offending parties.

Agreed. Yes power corrupts but the cure is not to be afraid to govern. I am a platonist ( edited to add: or should I say a Straussean :p ). I believe that some people are smarter and stronger and they are not so easily corrupted, some people are leaders and they are born to rule and lead.


I think the cure is to give them as little power over yourself as is practicable while still enjoying the benefits of the rule of law, and not one whit more. It's a delicate balancing act, to be sure, but as you yourself pointed out, difficult does not equal impossible. Besides, even if some people are less corruptible than others, we have no way of telling who is who.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Personally, i am willing to live witht he fact that someone can insult me because it gives me the freedom to say what I want to say.


Bastard. :D :p

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony


Bastard. :D :p

You have no right to say that;)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Tony
Wrong, the Supreme Court upheald, in the Larry Flint vs. Jerry Fallwell case that offensive speech is free-speech.

Which is a good thing, because this is almost true by definition. Inoffensive speech needs no right to defend it.

However, the big thing about that SCOTUS opinion was that it upheld that parody and satire were also valid forms of free speech.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Skeptic
At the risk of stating the obvious, there's a difference between a jew burning in the oven and a CARICAUTRE of a jew burning in the oven. One is murder, the other merely tasteless.


Certainly there is a tremendous difference, but the caricature could be seen as an incitement, which wouldn't necessarily be covered as freedom of speech.

[epepke]

I'd like to see the cartoon. It certainly sounds tasteless, and hard-hitting, and nasty (apropos considering the contributions of Thomas Nast). However, there are two things about it.

First, it's a political cartoon, and such cartoons are not generally expected to be redolent of lighthearted boffo with and merry chuckle. As with all political cartoons, it sometimes requires some though as to which sacred cow is getting made into tasty hamburger.

However, it's also burlesque. Burlesque is impossible to explain, by definition, because any attempt to explain it ruins it. In this way, it's a bit like conjuring.

Burlesque, however, is always topical, and so it becomes dated rather quickly. It is sometimes possible to draw analogies to a piece of burlesque that people generally understand already. I'll try to do this here.

In the US, there was and to a small extent still is a practice called "lynching." Originally used as vigilante justice, in the American South this became turned into what amounted to a recreational activity, where a bunch of white people got together and tortured and eventually murdered a black person (usually a man). As some times, there was a flaky pseudo-legal pretence, such as the Emmet Till case. In most cases, there wasn't. Up until 1924, when the Federal mail stopped delivering them (damn Yankees), it was possible to buy and sell through the mail "lynching postcards," which depicted an illustration of a black man being murdered, usually with the caption "I was there." People sent them to celebrate their visits to a lynching, much the same way I might send a postcard from Tokyo. Through the 1950's, protesting lynching was a really effective way to get called a Commie.

Now, of course, there were many people who considered the practice of reducing actual human lives to entertainment, at minimum, a bit tacky. They did things to try to stop it, and some of the things they did involved art. There were serious attempts, such as the song "Strange Fruit," or the song, "Lord, you Made the Nights Too Long." (Lynchings were usually done at night.) There were also political cartoons, some of which were burlesque and pictured a bunch of Bubbas and Lemuels turning a lynching into a game. These were nasty and tasteless, too. Also c.f. the KKK scene in Brother, Where Art Thou?

Let me tell you about Atlanta. I lived and worked there for two years. I made lots of money, but I left because it is quite frankly the most horrible place on Earth to live, excepting possibly the areas inside or immediately surrounding the many military bases. Basically, little has changed about Atlanta since 1865, and what little has changed has remained unchanged since 1968, with the exception of a proliferation of cell phones. The best thing I can say about Atlanta is that Lester Maddox Drive and Martin Luther King Jr. are names for different stretches of the same road. That is to say, Atlanta is incredibly racist. But they lie about it, especially to themselves.

Another bad thing about Atlanta is traffic congestion. Now, Atlanta has a modern, clean, efficient rail system. However, it hardly goes anywhere. One of the reasons it does not go anywhere is that people in Cobb and Gwinett counties don't want it to go there, lest some of those people ride it out there.

I worked in a hoity-toity section of Buckhead. I worked with a lot of black people, and my immediate supervisor at one time was black. We even had African-Africans working in the IT department. But still, we were in grenade-throwing distance of a hoity-toity mall where the security had gotten into trouble by throwing out anybody with dark skin. This resulted in a flurry of letters to the editor of the Journal-Constitution about how black people shouldn't come to this mall because they had their own mall. I am not making this up, and this was in 2001.

I'll save the story of the headhunter I met in the Bluepointe. While it's poignant, I think I've made my point already.

Now, there was during my time there a travelling exhibition of art related to lynching, including the aforementioned postcards. This exhibition had traveled without any difficulty through many cities including Huston, which is also nominally in the South. However, there was a massive public debate about whether it should be allowed in Atlanta. It was claimed that it would open up old wounds. No, I react, it just draws attention to the existing festering wounds that you are pretending do not exist.

To cut a long story short, in my estimation it cost me (after taxes) around $150,000 to leave Atlanta, and I consider it a bargain to have gotten away from people who think like that.

It's not my usual style to dance around an issue thus, but one has to do it in the case of burlesque. If it isn't yet clear how I think this story is relevant to the title case of the thread, here are two more hints: academia and occidentalism.

[TillEulenspiegel]

You know what .......Too freakin bad , It's a joke get over it. I don't care if you are offended by it or your sensitives are bruised. I've said it a million times , that Mel Brooks (Jew) and Richard Proyer (black ) couldn't do the things they did 20-30 yrs. ago cause everyones soooo sensitive and we're all victims. Bulls**t. Turn it off tune it out

Brooks springtime for Hitler and Torquemada sketches, Pryor that ******* crazy drug addict and wino stuff......my personal faves 2 live Jews "oy it's so humid" and "welcome to Fairfax avenue". Martin Mull the history of white people "mayonnaise "sketch .

Pryor and Chevy Chase on SNL few last lines of a racial tyrade...P: Honkie!, C: ******, P: dead honkie...Pryor on that same broadcast " whats black and blue and floats down the river ?...A honkie telling ni**er jokes. Tasteless? ... ya, offensive? to some maybe but you know what I miss the time when people could laugh at themselves and not be a victim of any passing vagary of nature , culture, art or science. So the next time you get offended by the name Washington Redskins , realize that the tragedy that befell a whole people is not addressable by taking offense of some silly name and for chrissake lighten up.

edit to add: Umm whats with the censorship did I miss a policy shift or am I just un-aware?

edit2: I am so sad that a pre-emptive parse censor has been installed. I thought that we were all adults and could express ourselves without PC oversight . I cannot tell You all how this distresses me , this is exactly the kind of thing I was attacking in my post. I do not engage in profanity or offensive labels , but to be edited by the use of certain words rather then an individual review or response to a complaint .. for once I am speechless.

[epepke]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
You know what .......Too freakin bad , It's a joke get over it. I don't care if you are offended by it or your sensitives are bruised. I've said it a million times , that Mel Brooks (Jew) and Richard Proyer (black ) couldn't do the things they did 20-30 yrs. ago cause everyones soooo sensitive and we're all victims. Bulls**t. Turn it off tune it out

Pryor and Brooks, two excellent burlesque artists. Also Randy Newman and Andrew Dice Clay, both of whom are not widely "gotten."

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by epepke
It's not my usual style to dance around an issue thus, but one has to do it in the case of burlesque. If it isn't yet clear how I think this story is relevant to the title case of the thread, here are two more hints: academia and occidentalism.

That's a very powerful piece of writing, Epepke. It reveals a point of view I had actually looked for, but couldn't find on my own.

Thank you.

[Dorian Gray]

last time i checked, writing a book was a behavior. Last time I checked, a book itself was not. Last time I checked, your post was a strawman.

If I made an ass out of myself, I guess you made a kunt out of yourself. You fell for it - now you must concede that words do hurt a little, or you wouldn't have responded like you did, which was my point.

My position is this: This guy, or any person, can say whatever they want within the extremely lax guidelines (you can't say you're going to kill the president for example - hi FBI internet guys!), and it's legal. No one is disputing that, so I don't know why anyone is arguing about it. Even Cleopatra, and she can correct me if I am wrong, is arguing about what people SHOULD say, not about what they CAN say. And I am arguing that this guy shouldn't have put his cartoon in the paper without at least testing it out on a few local rabbis to get their reaction to it. He has every right to alienate himself from his own people.

[Virgil]

I find it tasteless, crude and cruel...




Cleo...your avatars are becomming distracting :)



Virgil

[Skeptic]

Certainly there is a tremendous difference, but the caricature could be seen as an incitement, which wouldn't necessarily be covered as freedom of speech.

Indeed incitment isn't covered under free speech, but it seems unlikely that a caricature like that--by a jew, as well--is intended or understood as incitment.

[varwoche]

I've never seen so much debate amongst people essentially in agreement.

Nobody has advocated that the person be censored. Any everybody seems to agree the joke was in bad taste.

End of thread.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Speaking of "ni**ers":

I highly recommend the book "******" by Dick Gregory. It's a laugh out account of a black man struggling through the 60's. I haven't read this in a while, but I do remember the back of the book stating (paraphrasing)

"Momma, when you hear the word "ni**er", just think that they're advertising my book"

Charlie (it's only a word, but highly offensive to some) Monoxide

[Virgil]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
Speaking of "ni**ers":

I highly recommend the book "******" by Dick Gregory. It's a laugh out account of a black man struggling through the 60's. I haven't read this in a while, but I do remember the back of the book stating (paraphrasing)

"Momma, when you hear the word "ni**er", just think that they're advertising my book"

Charlie (it's only a word, but highly offensive to some) Monoxide


good point Charlie, I think context is important


Virgil

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Because freedom of speech exists in order we communicate freely our ideas. Freedom of speech doesn't exist so as wankers take advantage of it.
What would hurt you then? To see a Jew burning in an oven? Do you remember a year or so ago when some idiots in UK covered a muslim dead lady with bacon? How is that? Should we take this as a criticize towards Islam?

Cleo, hon, you have this exactly wrong. Freedom of speech is intended precisely to protect "offensive" speech. If it were not offensive in someone's eyes there would be no reason to protect it. Yes, you should have the absolute right to say exactly whatever you want about absolutely anything. You have the right to be a jerk and an *******. There are many people who are deeply, profoundly offended by what they hear on the Simpsons and many of those people would love to be able to censor the Simpsons. But I guess it all gets different when it gets around to something that offends you. I think the guy should be able author whatever kind of cartoon he chooses to. It doesn't mean I have to like it or admire it of even think it is acceptable. Thankfully the laws of this country are not based on what I personally find acceptable or not. They are based, one would, on fundamental principles.

[Dorian Gray]

The type of language Stern uses is pretty foul, although I admit I don't really find it offensive, just either funny or not funny. His stuff gets fined millions of dollars just because a tiny percentage of listeners including FCC wanks didn't like him.

Anti-Bush demonstrators are forced, literally forced, to do their thing blocks away unassailable by the press corps. This is just thinly veiled censorship hidden behind 'security'.

Then there's this front page Jew. None of them should be censored, but two of them are. Probably both for political reasons.

Here's the difference as I see it: Potty humor, or ribaldry, has been done for thousands of years. Political humor had been done thousands of years ago, until feudalism and 'The Church' (tm) pretty much turned off that faucet, but it started up again a few hundred years ago.

Holocaust humor is pretty much off limits still. This guy was testing the waters, but I think he should have started with something a little more subtle, perhaps. His school could legally censor him, I think, unless that's just high school newspapers I'm thinking about.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Billy has it exactrly right.

Oliver Wendel Holmes: "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought -- not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate. "