Take heed, Dubya...

[CFLarsen]

Freedom of speech holier than religion

Freedom of speech is more important than consideration for religious sensitivities for most people

Freedom of expression should always take priority over religiously based traditions or rules, according to the results of a new poll.

In a poll conducted by consultancy firm Rambøll Management and published in national daily Jyllands-Posten today, 56 percent of those responding said that freedom of speech was always more important.

For a third, 33 percent, whether one was more important than the other depended on the situation. Six percent said that freedom of expression was never more important than respect for religion.

The poll was conducted as part of the national debate sparked by Jyllands-Posten's decision to publish 12 drawings of the prophet Mohammed on 30 September.

In the poll, 54 percent of respondents said they felt it was acceptable that the newspaper published the drawings. A quarter, 25 percent, said the newspaper should not have done so.

Source (http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3390728/)

Isn't it great to live in such a country? :)

[kmortis]

Isn't it great to live in such a country? :)


I've been meaning to ask, what IS Denmark's immigration policy anyway? ;)

[Beerina]

"Should not have done so" is not the same thing as "government should have prevented..."

The important part of free speech is the right to use speech to try to affect other peoples' behavior. This includes mockery and satire as a key part of this. :eek:

[Ryokan]

I've been meaning to ask, what IS Denmark's immigration policy anyway? ;)

Horrible.

[CFLarsen]

I've been meaning to ask, what IS Denmark's immigration policy anyway? ;)

We are discussing free speech. Don't you think that it's marvellous that Denmark allows such drawings?

[Kopji]

Were the pictures posted as some kind of story or just to piss off Muslims?

That princess Mary is a hottie.

[CFLarsen]

Were the pictures posted as some kind of story or just to piss off Muslims?

They were printed, because it was revealed that some illustrators of (IIRC) a book about Mohammed had backed down from drawing Mohammed himself for fear of retaliation from extremist Muslims.

So, the newspaper asked 12 cartoonists if they would draw Mohammed. Which they did.

[RandFan]

We are discussing free speech. Don't you think that it's marvellous that Denmark allows such drawings? I'm not certain what this has to do with Bush? I would agree that it is marvelous to live in a country with free speech. In the United States the Supreme court voted unanimously that it was ok for Larry Flynt to fabricate a story that was defamatory to the Reverend Jerry Falwell because of free speech concerns. For anyone who hasn't seen People vs Larry Flynt (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117318/) I recommend it highly.

I'm still not certain what this has to do with Bush but it is marvelous that the United States allows freedom of speech.

Isn't a discussion of free speech more appropriate in the Politics forum?

[CFLarsen]

I'm still not certain what this has to do with Bush but it is marvelous that the United States allows freedom of speech.

You try to publish 12 cartoons of Mohammed in US newspapers. Or, of course, express your feelings about Bush on a Tshirt when going on an airplane.

Isn't a discussion of free speech more appropriate in the Politics forum?

Perhaps. The mods can move this thread if they want.

[RandFan]

You try to publish 12 cartoons of Mohammed in US newspapers. Or, of course, express your feelings about Bush on a Tshirt when going on an airplane. I see anti-Bush "speech" every day of my life. "Bush Lies" are on the bumper stickers of cars everywhere. People speak out against the president on TV, radio, in newspapers, on T-Shirts, in public schools, etc., etc. I voiced my objection for the T-Shirt on the plane incident. But the Plane ISN'T public and the owners of the plane and the business are within their rights to regulate what happens on their plane even if I don't like it.

As to your first sentence. My tax dollars paid for a statue of Jesus Christ to be placed in a vat of urine. My tax dollars paid for a depiction of the so-called Virgin Mary using cow dung. Not only are attacks against religion allowed in my country but my country funds those attacks. I have no idea whatsoever if I could or cold not publish cartoons of Mohamed in the US Newspapers. US newspapers print what THEY feel is newsworthy. Your argument is NOT proof of anything. In any event, the US Newspapers are NOT the government. Censorship would only apply if the government prohibited the papers from so publishing anything and you have zero evidence that this has ever happened. Your argument is completely without foundation.

[CFLarsen]

Go on an airplane with a critique of Bush on your Tshirt and see what happens.

[RandFan]

Go on an airplane with a critique of Bush on your Tshirt and see what happens.
Asked and answered. More importantly, dumb, really dumb argument Larsen. I can say anything I want about Bush anwhere but in a private setting. Anti Bush propaganda is everywhere in America as it should be. However, people can't go into a place of business and spread their propaganda without permission from the owners of the place of business. THEY, the business owners have the right to decide what is and is not appropriate. You are simply one of the most obtuse individuals I have ever seen.

[CFLarsen]

Asked and answered. More importantly, dumb, really dumb argument Larsen. I can say anything I want about Bush anwhere but in a private setting. Anti Bush propaganda is everywhere in America as it should be. However, people can't go into a place of business and spread their propaganda without permission from the owners of the place of business. THEY, the business owners have the right to decide what is and is not appropriate. You are simply one of the most obtuse individuals I have ever seen.

Key: "But in a private setting".

Bush owns the United States of America?

[RandFan]

Key: "But in a private setting".

Bush owns the United States of America? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

"We the people..." --US Constitution, PREAMBLE

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. --Bill of Rights, Amendment I

"government of the people, by the people, for the people" --Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln

Examples:
TV Show That's My Bush (http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thatsmybush/)mocked George Bush
TV Show Mad TV regularly mocks George Bush
TV Show SNL regularly mocks George Bush
TV Show the Daily Show regularly mocks George Bush

Jay Leno, David Letterman, Craig Ferguson, etc. all regularly mock George Bush.

If you honestly think George Bush owns America and suppresses free speech then you have been living under a rock. I know that you live in Denmark but this stuff is available on cable, satellite, DVD and on the Internet.

[JLam]

You try to publish 12 cartoons of Mohammed in US newspapers.

If a newspaper decided to publish those cartoons, fear of government reprisals would not deter them, I can guarantee.

Newspapers are free to publish whatever they want, as long as they don't deliberately libel private individuals.

Public figures are held to a different standard, and as such are eaiser to mock in print and on TV. The President, being the most public of public figures, is probably the least protected person under the law when it comes to people making disparaging remarks about him.

[Kopji]

Ok I'm a little confused. Why would cartoonists be willing to draw Mohammad for a newspaper but not a book?

I guess their point has been made: They've needed to hire a guard for their offices and the cartoonists now get death threats.

Check - Humiliated Muslim extremists can be violent and dangerous.

Christians doing the will of God sometimes invade other countries without thinking much about it first - trusting the Lawd O Mitey. I'd bet if we started criticizing some they'd come back with all kinds of gibberish about us being unpatriotic and stuff.

Check - Christians can be dangerous when well armed and on a mission from God.

I have to agree with Randfan this time though. There does not seem like a general 'freedom of speech' issue in the US. Agreed we might be more likely to think of printing a dozen pics of Mohammad sort of like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater.
...And George Bush is probably a great supporter of free speech, as long as he does not have to see it. I have not decided if, that as a defacto cult leader he personally approves of protesters being shuffled out of his sight... or if it is only his overzealous followers who hate protest of their revered leader. Judging from George's genuine surprise whenever confronted with the occasionally 'missed' protester or opposition, I suspect his followers protect him out of reverence.


...LANCASTER, PA - December 9, 2004 - The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of five men who were arrested after they stripped down to thong underwear and formed a human pyramid in anticipation of President Bush’s motorcade procession through Lancaster County.
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/aclu12092004/


...Earlier this year, the ACLU again filed a lawsuit against the Secret Service and a White House official for ordering the arrest of a young couple who wore anti-Bush t-shirts at a presidential rally in Charleston, West Virginia. Jeff and Nicole Rank were initially charged with trespassing on the public grounds, even though they had tickets for the event, but the charges were later dropped and the couple received a public apology from the mayor and the city council. The lawsuit seeks a public admission that the federal agents acted illegally by ordering the arrests.
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17172&c=86


...Also strangely absent from the report on the Bush's Oregon visit were the protesters in Medford. Those who carried protest signs in that Southern Oregon city were herded into a parking lot surrounded by police, while Bush supporters were allowed to line the Presidents car route.
http://www.grumpyvoices.com/2002_08_01_archive.html


...President Bush has never been an advocate of the First Amendment. Even when he was governor of Texas, he prohibited demonstrations on the walkways in front of the governor's mansion, an area that had traditionally been used for peaceful protests.

As president, Bush has widened his restrictions on demonstrations against his policies. Anti-Bush protesters are now relegated to what are euphemistically called Free Speech Zones. These areas are cordoned off as far as a mile away from the president and the main thoroughfares, so that Bush cannot see the demonstrators, or their signs of protest, nor hear their chants.

The free speech enclosures are only for those who disagree with the administration's current policies. Those citizens who carry pro-Bush signs are allowed to line the street where the president's motorcade passes.

Free speech zone

Members of the Secret Service or local law enforcement officers under orders of the Secret Service demand protesters move into a free speech area.

Peter Buckley, of Oregon, a former Democratic candidate for Congress, attended a presidential appearance. After being herded into a fenced-in free speech area, he wrote in an opinion piece for the Oregonian: "We were not allowed anywhere near any kind of position where the president, or the media which follows him, would see or hear us. This is not America. This in not the land of the free and the home of the brave. This is some other country. I'm a patriotic American. I want the country I was raised to believe in, a country strong enough for political discourse and debate, with leaders courageous and decent enough to have the willingness to listen to all citizens, not just those who parrot their own views. ... The effort being made to hide political opposition in this country is more than cowardly, it's un-American."
http://www.rense.com/general45/otr.htm


...I, on the other hand, an old ex-Infantry veteran from long ago, was forced to stand 100 feet from Dalrymple Drive, in the direct Louisiana summer sun, hidden behind some of the beautiful giant oak trees growing alongside Dalrymple Drive at Highland Road, even though I had planned, with several other groups, to protest along the curbside on Dalrymple Drive.

But because I was not "pro-Bush", and because I carried a sign, I wasn`t allowed to do what I planned. A sign of protest? How devious! How DANGEROUS! It`s enough to suspend the Bill Of Rights, right? WRONG!
http://baltimorechronicle.com/052704FreeSpeechZones.shtml

[RandFan]

...And George Bush is probably a great supporter of free speech, as long as he does not have to see it. I have not decided if, that as a defacto cult leader he personally approves of protesters being shuffled out of his sight... or if it is only his overzealous followers who hate protest of their revered leader. Judging from George's genuine surprise whenever confronted with the occasionally 'missed' protester or opposition, I suspect his followers protect him out of reverence. I don't know. I have voiced my concern myself over this issue. If Larsen had made THIS point I would have agreed that it is an important issue. I can't imagine anything more important than redress and protest. However this particular issue doesn't exactly fit his thesis.

Good point!

[CFLarsen]

Not by any stretch of the imagination.

"We the people..." --US Constitution, PREAMBLE

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. --Bill of Rights, Amendment I

"government of the people, by the people, for the people" --Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln

Examples:
TV Show That's My Bush (http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thatsmybush/)mocked George Bush
TV Show Mad TV regularly mocks George Bush
TV Show SNL regularly mocks George Bush
TV Show the Daily Show regularly mocks George Bush

Jay Leno, David Letterman, Craig Ferguson, etc. all regularly mock George Bush.

If you honestly think George Bush owns America and suppresses free speech then you have been living under a rock. I know that you live in Denmark but this stuff is available on cable, satellite, DVD and on the Internet.

"...but in a private setting".

[CFLarsen]

Ok I'm a little confused. Why would cartoonists be willing to draw Mohammad for a newspaper but not a book?

The cartoonists were not the same as the book illustrators.

[RandFan]

"...but in a private setting". Yeah, "...but in a private setting". Do you have a point? I have given you ample evidence that freedom of speech is alive and well in America and all you can do is regurgitate "...but in a private setting".

Is there something wrong with that? {sheesh}

[RandFan]

The thing I can't figure out and I doubt anyone can, is what is the point of this thread? America has freedom of speech and Bush is doing nothing to quash it, aside perhaps from some protests where he is speaking and I won't minimize the importance of that. But what the hell does a newspaper printing cartoons prove? Bush had done nothing to stop newspapers from printing anything. They still attack him all they want. The newspapers still write columns critical of Christians and Muslims so what is this all about?

[JLam]

Claus, I'm kind of confused. What are you getting at?

[CFLarsen]

Yeah, "...but in a private setting". Do you have a point? I have given you ample evidence that freedom of speech is alive and well in America and all you can do is regurgitate "...but in a private setting".

Is there something wrong with that? {sheesh}

That "freedom" isn't worth much, if you can only have it in a private setting.

[CFLarsen]

The thing I can't figure out and I doubt anyone can, is what is the point of this thread? America has freedom of speech and Bush is doing nothing to quash it, aside perhaps from some protests where he is speaking and I won't minimize the importance of that.

You have got to be kidding.

Bush censoring abortion-related speech (http://www.crlp.org/pr_01_0731ggrdismiss.html)

Bush censoring scientific information (http://www.ncac.org/cen_news/cn91scientificinfo.htm)

Bush censoring scientists (http://www.counterthink.org/000346.html)

How many pictures have you seen of coffins with dead American soldiers coming back from Iraq?

[CFLarsen]

Claus, I'm kind of confused. What are you getting at?

Freedom of speech.

[Donks]

That "freedom" isn't worth much, if you can only have it in a private setting.
I believe you missunderstood Randfan. He said "I can say anything I want about Bush anwhere but in a private setting." That means that if he is in a public setting he can say anything he wants about Bush. Once he goes in a private setting, like my home or a commercial airliner, he has to abide by the rules of the owner.

[CFLarsen]

That's a "private setting"?

[Donks]

That's a "private setting"?
Yes it is. It's a private plane owned by a company, which is in turned owned by stockholders and the like. At least in the US.

[CFLarsen]

Then, I misunderstood. Apologies.

[RandFan]

You have got to be kidding.

Bush censoring abortion-related speech (http://www.crlp.org/pr_01_0731ggrdismiss.html)

Bush censoring scientific information (http://www.ncac.org/cen_news/cn91scientificinfo.htm)

Bush censoring scientists (http://www.counterthink.org/000346.html)

How many pictures have you seen of coffins with dead American soldiers coming back from Iraq? No, I'm not kidding at all. And this is not the subject of your OP. I'm against any such censorship but that has absolutly nothing to do with the newspapers and such. Further your links paint a misleading picture. The first has to do with foreign aid workers.

Anyone anywhere in the united states can speak out against the President or his policies except in some private settings and some extreme examples. I will grant that I'm not happy with some of Bush's efforts on speech. But this does not prove that America does not have free speech. If it were so then the examples I cited before would not exist.

[CFLarsen]

No, I'm not kidding at all. And this is not the subject of your OP. I'm against any such censorship but that has absolutly nothing to do with the newspapers and such. Further your links paint a misleading picture. The first has to do with foreign aid workers.

Anyone anywhere in the united states can speak out against the President or his policies except in some private settings and some extreme examples. I will grant that I'm not happy with some of Bush's efforts on speech. But this does not prove that America does not have free speech. If it were so then the examples I cited before would not exist.

Wait, wait....

Do you deny that Bush is trying - and in some cases succeeding - to censor?

[JLam]

Claus, I respect you very much. But the links you provided are somewhat suspect. And keep in mind here as you read this, that I am NO fan of Dubya. I never voted for him and I think he's somewhat of a buffoon. But the truth trumps my personal views in this case.

In the "Bush censoring scientists" link, the whole story is written without a single line of attribution, and no evidence to back up any of its claims. The whole site is awash in thinly veiled conspiracy theories. The article linked to the word "censorship", and the link takes you to another article which details a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by a private company against an individual. The claims of censorship may very well be true, but accepting what it says on its face, with no evidence to back it up, seems to me to be a bit un-skeptical. The article speaks of "new rules" regarding scientists talking to the WHO...but what are the new rules? Where are they written? Who has to follow them? The reader is left to draw his own conclusions.

The "Bush censoring scientific information" link takes you to a site detailing various government efforts to fudge scientific data to fit the Bush administration agenda, and to put administration-friendly advisors on various scientific boards. While this is reprehensible, it is not infringing on anyone's right to say what they want to say. The right of free speech extends to members of the government, and they are free to distort data all they want. Mind you, I am in no way defending this action, but there is a huge distinction between manipulating data and stacking your advisory board with friendly voices, and saying to individual citizens "You can't say anything bad about the president."

The last link, "Bush censoring abortion-related speech" may seem on the surface to be limiting speech. But what Bush ordered back in 2001 was a ban on U.S. funding for overseas abortion counseling. What is actually a ban on funding is misinterpreted by many to be a ban on mentioning. This is wrong. I also don't agree with this, but it's hardly a gag order. It simply says to foriegn governments "Hey, if you want our money for your health clinics, you can't talk about abortion." Some may make the argument that this is de facto censorship, but I don't see it that way. (It's akin to a grandmother giving a child $20 for his birthday, but admonishing him not to spend it on candy and comic books.) And let's not forget the fact that all of this involves stuff happening overseas.

Sorry, Claus. I hate to shoot down your examples, because I respect you so much. But if you want to show how Bush is restricting free speech in my country, you're going to have to do better than that.

And, just to get this out of the way:

How many pictures have you seen of coffins with dead American soldiers coming back from Iraq?

I've seen a little more than 300, including one on the front page of The Washington Post (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB152/index.htm). Yes, it took a Freedom Of Information Act request to get the pictures, but they were released.

Even if the pictures of the caskets were never released, how does that infringe on an individual's right to free speech?

[TragicMonkey]

Autumn breeze stirs leaves/
deliberate obtuseness/
Denmark must be dull.

[CFLarsen]

Claus, I respect you very much.

Thank you!

But the links you provided are somewhat suspect. And keep in mind here as you read this, that I am NO fan of Dubya. I never voted for him and I think he's somewhat of a buffoon.

You have to be English. That was the understatement of the year! ;)

In the "Bush censoring scientists" link, the whole story is written without a single line of attribution, and no evidence to back up any of its claims. The whole site is awash in thinly veiled conspiracy theories. The article linked to the word "censorship", and the link takes you to another article which details a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by a private company against an individual. The claims of censorship may very well be true, but accepting what it says on its face, with no evidence to back it up, seems to me to be a bit un-skeptical. The article speaks of "new rules" regarding scientists talking to the WHO...but what are the new rules? Where are they written? Who has to follow them? The reader is left to draw his own conclusions.

Why have such a Global Gag Rule at all? As the judge said, it may be an extremely narrow view that it will harm abortion speech, but nevertheless, those are the consequences. Shouldn't we (well, Americans) be eternally vigilant when it comes to any restrictions of free speech? You can move a mountain by moving it pebble by pebble.

The "Bush censoring scientific information" link takes you to a site detailing various government efforts to fudge scientific data to fit the Bush administration agenda, and to put administration-friendly advisors on various scientific boards. While this is reprehensible, it is not infringing on anyone's right to say what they want to say. The right of free speech extends to members of the government, and they are free to distort data all they want. Mind you, I am in no way defending this action, but there is a huge distinction between manipulating data and stacking your advisory board with friendly voices, and saying to individual citizens "You can't say anything bad about the president."

It's not just a question of bad-mouthing the Prez. Science defines our reality. If you are not allowed to speak from scientific data, then others are ultimately controlling reality.

The last link, "Bush censoring abortion-related speech" may seem on the surface to be limiting speech. But what Bush ordered back in 2001 was a ban on U.S. funding for overseas abortion counseling. What is actually a ban on funding is misinterpreted by many to be a ban on mentioning. This is wrong. I also don't agree with this, but it's hardly a gag order. It simply says to foriegn governments "Hey, if you want our money for your health clinics, you can't talk about abortion." Some may make the argument that this is de facto censorship, but I don't see it that way. (It's akin to a grandmother giving a child $20 for his birthday, but admonishing him not to spend it on candy and comic books.) And let's not forget the fact that all of this involves stuff happening overseas.

It's as much as an economic gag-order as a free-speech gag-order, I'll give you that. And a moral one, as well, no doubt. But if you can't talk about abortion to anyone, then how much discussion do you think is going on in those American organisations? We get the message, don't talk about abortion.

Sorry, Claus. I hate to shoot down your examples, because I respect you so much. But if you want to show how Bush is restricting free speech in my country, you're going to have to do better than that.

I hope I explained it well enough. :)

I've seen a little more than 300, including one on the front page of The Washington Post (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB152/index.htm). Yes, it took a Freedom Of Information Act request to get the pictures, but they were released.

Even if the pictures of the caskets were never released, how does that infringe on an individual's right to free speech?

You can't have freedom of speech as an individual, if the press isn't allowed to report what they want, the way they see fit. The very fact that the photos had to be aquired through a FOIA request speaks volumes: Why on Earth would anyone want to hide something that everyone knows happens? Because if you don't see it, it doesn't happen. Visuals are crucial in today's perception of reality. If it isn't on TV, it didn't happen.

It is far easier to ignore something that isn't visual. Images burn themselves into our memories. What do you remember, the sound of 9-11, the written words of 9-11, or the pictures of 9-11?

Remember this? It even made a stamp.

http://www.stsaviour.org/images/WTC_Firemen_Flag.jpg

And this?

http://www.humanistart.com/images/nick_ut.jpg

That picture was a huge influence on American public opinion on the Vietnam war. Don't think for a second that images are not also freedom of speech.

[davefoc]

Thanks to RandFan and jlam who expressed my thoughts on this exactly and better than I could have.

CFL,
I think, with respect, that your point was unclear. If your point had been that the Bush administration attempts to use government power to promote its views and to use government power to reduce the impact of the speech of people promoting views it disagrees with, I think everybody including the people from the Bush administration would have agreed with you. But the same thing could be said about every government leader in every country that has ever existed.

If your point was that Bush administration messes about with science for political purposes I think most people would have agreed with you to some degree. Scientific American has run two editorials seriously criticizing what they see as the Bush administration's attempts to politicize science. This is an important topic and if you had made it clear that this was one of the things you were talking about there might have been an interesting discussion of that issue.

If you had made it clear that you were criticizing the Bush administration for restricting the movement and locations of protestors in disagreement with Bush administration policies you would probably have found widespread agreement that there is an issue here as to how far the president can go in restricting protestors at his appearances and that perhaps the Bush administration has stepped over the line.

The problem with the points that you seemed to be trying to make was with your example. There is absolutely no restriction on any private media in the US that prevents them from criticizing, satirizing or ridiculing religion, although the only religion that is routinely ridiculed is Christianity. That has nothing to do with any government restrictions against the ridicule of non-Christian religions. I think it has more to do with a widespread notion that ridiculing minorities whether they be religious or racial is bad. I suspect also it has something to with the notion that ridiculing Islam is a bad idea because they seem to be willing to blow people up who do it.

In some areas, the US has more freedom of speech than many European countries. It is inconceivable that laws against the rights of holocaust deniers to express their views could have been passed in the US. The US has long standing tradtions and laws that allow people to express whatever crackpot theories they feel like, without regard to the hurt feelings or even violence that might occur as a result of the speech.

ETA: I should have mentioned while Islam is not often the target of ridicule in the US, it is routinely the target of criticism. The criticism ranges from generalized criticism of Islam often by people that seem to be promoting a Christian or Jewish agenda to criticism of Islam by people attacking the fundamentalist elements in Islam that are promoting violence and restricting the rights of women.

[JLam]

You have to be English. That was the understatement of the year! ;)
I've been to England, but I'm a hot dog eatin' American ;)



Why have such a Global Gag Rule at all? As the judge said, it may be an extremely narrow view that it will harm abortion speech, but nevertheless, those are the consequences. Shouldn't we (well, Americans) be eternally vigilant when it comes to any restrictions of free speech? You can move a mountain by moving it pebble by pebble.

I disagree that it's a Global Gag Rule. It's a restriction on funding, not speech. The government's position is this: If you want to discuss abortion, that's fine, but we're not going to give you any of our money. It's perfectly within their rights to do that. Of course, not everyone will agree with that, but that's beside the point. It is not infringing on any American's freedom to say anything he or she wants about any subject at all, ever.



It's not just a question of bad-mouthing the Prez. Science defines our reality. If you are not allowed to speak from scientific data, then others are ultimately controlling reality.
Scientists are free to speak, write, and say whatever they please. The government is also free to offer up its opinions and to try to stack the deck in its favor. I think that it's wrong for the government to do that, but that act in and of itself does not stop any scientist anywhere from speaking up about anything. If you can cite an example of a scientist being "gagged" by the government, I will gladly eat my words.


You can't have freedom of speech as an individual, if the press isn't allowed to report what they want, the way they see fit.
True. But that's not what happened here. Here you had the government actively tyring to cover up information. Then the press came along and reported on the cover-up. As a result, after a long process, the government came to its senses and released the information it was trying to cover up. To me, that's a wonderful example of how freedom of speech works in this country. If we were in North Korea, the people who reported on the cover-up probably would have been summarily excecuted.


The very fact that the photos had to be aquired through a FOIA request speaks volumes: Why on Earth would anyone want to hide something that everyone knows happens? Because if you don't see it, it doesn't happen. Visuals are crucial in today's perception of reality. If it isn't on TV, it didn't happen.
Exactly. The government was trying to suppress the information just for that reason. Sure, that's wrong. Fortunately, our system works in such a way that the people who spoke out against this act are still free, and not in some prison somewhere.

Here's the bottom line. If I want, I can get a permit and sit in front of the White House with a sign that reads "Dubya is an idiot who has sex with monkeys!" and as long as I'm not disturbing the peace, I can have no fear of government reprisals.

[JLam]

Thanks, davefoc. I should add that this quote:

The US has long standing tradtions and laws that allow people to express whatever crackpot theories they feel like, without regard to the hurt feelings or even violence that might occur as a result of the speech.


...is not entirely accurate. In the U.S. Supreme Court, CHAPLINSKY v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), the court found that "fighting words", or any words that would incite violence, are in fact NOT protected under the first amendment.

You can read the case here (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=315&invol=568)

[davefoc]

I was aware of this. I guess this is the problem with making almost any statement absolute, almost all absolute statements are not absolutely correct.

[Pope130]

Is anyone else desturbed by the fact that the point on debate in this whole thread is "freedom of speech", while the example sited in the OP is about "freedom of the press"?

[RandFan]

Wait, wait....

Do you deny that Bush is trying - and in some cases succeeding - to censor?No, I don't deny it at all. It's wrong and I condemng such actions though I can understand why some might think it appropriate.

You can do without the "wait, wait" rhetoric Larsen. I'm more than happy to concede the truth.

[CFLarsen]

davefoc,

I am indeed making the point that we see these cartoons in Danish media and not in US media. Why not? You make fun of politicians, you make fun of celebrities, and you certainly make fun of Christians as well. But do you make fun of Muslims? I've only seen Muslim terrorists made fun of so far.

The use of humor is part and parcel of a free press. Think of what impact cartoons have had in the past in the US. Politicians have been ridiculed for their idiocies. Big shots get their comeuppance by satire. Why is it so effective? Because those who are targets are targets because they said you can't make fun of them. If something is pronounced taboo, the satirists immediately step in. That's what they are there for: To point out the dangers of such absolute power.

You say that the US doesn't ridicule Islam - but why not? Everyone else seems to be ridiculed. Do American media publish 12 cartoons depicting Muhammed, simply because some Muslims say you can't? No.

As for the other examples: If the Danish PM tried even vaguely to censor the press and science the way Bush has in the US, there would be an uproar. Nobody would stand for it, even those media that are - to a point - "government friendly".

[CFLarsen]

I disagree that it's a Global Gag Rule. It's a restriction on funding, not speech. The government's position is this: If you want to discuss abortion, that's fine, but we're not going to give you any of our money. It's perfectly within their rights to do that. Of course, not everyone will agree with that, but that's beside the point. It is not infringing on any American's freedom to say anything he or she wants about any subject at all, ever.

It infringes on the American employees' right to discuss abortion. When they work in these organizations, they can't discuss abortion issues, because that's a no-no.

Scientists are free to speak, write, and say whatever they please. The government is also free to offer up its opinions and to try to stack the deck in its favor. I think that it's wrong for the government to do that, but that act in and of itself does not stop any scientist anywhere from speaking up about anything. If you can cite an example of a scientist being "gagged" by the government, I will gladly eat my words.

Under the current administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has blacklisted qualified scientists who pose a threat to its pro-business ideology. When a team of biologists working for the EPA indicated that there had been a violation of the “Endangered Species Act” by the Army Corps of Engineers, the group was replaced with a “corporate-friendly” panel. In addition, a nationally respected biologist, Dr. James Zahn, was ordered by EPA representatives not to publish a study identifying a health endangering bacteria in industrial hog farms.
The Bush Administration is appointing unqualified scientists with close industry ties to the advisory boards. The Office of Human Services appointed several individuals with ties to the lead industry. One of their appointees testified that lead levels, seven times the current limit, are safe for children.
Source (http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/3.html)

Censorship and political oversight of government scientists is not restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior, when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration's policies or with the views of its political supporters.
Source (http://www.oneworld.net/article/view/79763/1/)

Scientists and Nobel Laureates Say Bush Administration Has Censored Reports: In late February, more than 60 influential scientists, including more than 20 Nobel laureates, signed a statement saying the administration had disbanded scientific advisory committees, placed unqualified people on other panels and censored reports by others when their scientific conclusions conflicted with administration policies. (New York Times, 3/30/04)
Source (http://bushandscience.blogspot.com/)

You want salt and pepper with those? :)

True. But that's not what happened here. Here you had the government actively tyring to cover up information. Then the press came along and reported on the cover-up. As a result, after a long process, the government came to its senses and released the information it was trying to cover up. To me, that's a wonderful example of how freedom of speech works in this country. If we were in North Korea, the people who reported on the cover-up probably would have been summarily excecuted.

You are in the US, and the science committees are still being replaced by numbskulls.

Exactly. The government was trying to suppress the information just for that reason. Sure, that's wrong. Fortunately, our system works in such a way that the people who spoke out against this act are still free, and not in some prison somewhere.

You don't need to put people in prison to silence them. Just take away their grants and remove them from their positions.

Here's the bottom line. If I want, I can get a permit and sit in front of the White House with a sign that reads "Dubya is an idiot who has sex with monkeys!" and as long as I'm not disturbing the peace, I can have no fear of government reprisals.

That's the key point, isn't it? Who decides when you are disturbing the peace?

[CFLarsen]

No, I don't deny it at all. It's wrong and I condemng such actions though I can understand why some might think it appropriate.

You can do without the "wait, wait" rhetoric Larsen. I'm more than happy to concede the truth.

Good. Just to clarify: You admit that your previous statement:

America has freedom of speech and Bush is doing nothing to quash it, aside perhaps from some protests where he is speaking and I won't minimize the importance of that.

was wrong?

[davefoc]

davefoc,

I am indeed making the point that we see these cartoons in Danish media and not in US media. Why not? You make fun of politicians, you make fun of celebrities, and you certainly make fun of Christians as well. But do you make fun of Muslims? I've only seen Muslim terrorists made fun of so far.

Only a few groups in the US are routinely ridiculed. I am not sure why the list is so small.

My list in order of frequency of targeted ridicule would be
Politicians, particularly the standing president
Other celebrities
Christians
Gays to some degree

Mostly, ridicule of any group (except the four I mentioned above) in the US, is not politically correct and is rarely done in the media. That seems like it is a good thing to me. Societies where people respect each other despite their differences are probably better than societies where majority populations routinely engage in the ridicule of various subsets of the population.

So I think the better question is why is ridicule acceptable for a few groups and not why some particular group (like Muslims) are not targetted. I don't know the answer to this exactly but it probably is a combination of factors. For one thing it is a bit dicey for a media outlet to decide to make fun of any group that is not on the accepted list. If the joke is perceived as cruel or unfair the media outlet can expect to be criticized as racist. It is safer to make a joke at the expense of Christianity where there are many precedents and not venture into untested areas.

[JLam]

It infringes on the American employees' right to discuss abortion. When they work in these organizations, they can't discuss abortion issues, because that's a no-no.

It does no such thing. They can discuss abortion if they want. They will lose U.S. funding if they do, but no one is saying they can't simply talk about it. That's just dishonest.


You want salt and pepper with those? :)
I prefer mustard, actually. But I'm not eating anything yet.

The examples you cited were of the government actively trying to supress information. That's different from restricting speech. It's just as wrong, in my opinion, but it's different. Those scientists are free to publish their information in journals, and the government is free to not listen to them and to remove them from advisory committees. Let's be clear about something. Those actions are clearly wrong, but they do not fall under the heading of restricting speech. If the scientists want the information out there, it will clearly get out there, as referenced by the fact that you were even able to quote those articles. If we didn't have freedom of speech in this country, you never would have heard about the government trying to cover up this information.

You are in the US, and the science committees are still being replaced by numbskulls. Again, it's clearly wrong, but not a violation of our First Amendment. Trust me. If it was, it would have been challenged by now.

You don't need to put people in prison to silence them. Just take away their grants and remove them from their positions.
Point granted. But any good scientist in this country would be welcomed by an number of distinguished universities, and grant money doesn't come exclusively from the government. If there is good science to be done, it will be done.



That's the key point, isn't it? Who decides when you are disturbing the peace?
The police. And believe it or not, they're usually pretty good about letting people demonstrate. The police in this country will protect neo-nazis and the KKK if those groups want to hold a rally or a parade. Can you imagine that? Black police officers protecting the rights of white hatemongers to parade down the street! That's freedom.

[RandFan]

Good. Just to clarify: You admit that your previous statement:

was wrong? To some extent, yes. However I think it would be very misleading to suggest that it was wrong to a large extent. There are sadly some specific but isolated instances of an attempt by the administration or others to suppress speech. I'm willing to admit that.

I'm curious, are you willing to admit that by and large free speech is alive and well in America? That Americans can pretty much say just about anything we want just about anytime as long as it is in public? That my examples are empirical proof that Americans are free to speak their minds? Will you admit that we can and do,

1.) Regularly and derisively mock the President of the United States.
2.) Regularly and derisively mock religious institutions.
3.) Speak out for abortion rights.
4.) Protest the President of the United States.
5.) Protest for abortion rights (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0425-01.htm).
6.) Protest against the war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_protests_against_war_on_Iraq).
7.) That the ACLU (http://arar.essortment.com/acluamericanci_rmal.htm) has effectively protected free speech rights in the US since 1920
8.) That the United States Supreme Court voted unanimously in favor of Larry Flynt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Flynt)in a landmark free speech case?

How about it? Or are the questions and answers one sided? For you to ask and me to answer only?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/images/0425-02.jpg

Pro-Abortion Rally April 2004 (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0425-01.htm)


http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/ngos/protests/0118antiwar.jpg

Anti-War Rally September 24, 2005 (http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/advocacy/protest/iraq/2005/0924protest.htm)

[RandFan]

Larsen? Hellooo....

[CFLarsen]

To some extent, yes.

Thank you.

*ding*

Next?

Larsen? Hellooo....

Hello, what?

You post in the middle of the night (for me), and you expect me to answer you? I have told you before, I sleep at night. Yes, when it's night for me, it's still day for you. Obviously, you are so f*****g stupid that I have to inform you of this each time I go to bed.

"Compromise" (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?p=1287638#post1287638), my a55....

[RandFan]

Hello, what? "WHAT?" Are you kidding? Look at the time stamp of my post. 21st November 2005 05:42 PM

Ok now, work with me here. I posted my questions on the 21st. Your answer was on the 23rd. Do you see it? Huh? Do you? Do I need to do the math for you?

Watch who you call stupid when you are incapable of doing your own math.

[RandFan]

Oh, oh, wait, just a minute. YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!

DOH!!!!!!! :D

You lose 24 hours and then you don't answer the questions? Are you kidding?

Larsen, HELLLLLLoooooooOOOOOOOOOOOO

Anyone home?