Only 15% consider it more important for the United States to make sure that nothing is done to offend other nations and cultures.Nothing. Make sure. That's such a strong statement of the value opposing free speech that it's not surprising that so few Americans would take that side.
The question asked was: "Is it more important for the United States to guarantee freedom of speech or to make sure that nothing is done to offend other nations and cultures?" I think the question should be: What is more important: freedom of speech or avoiding offending other nations and cultures? Or: Should the United States government protect freedom of speech even when that speech offends people in other nations and cultures?
I was trying to remove the idea that the U.S. could "make sure that nothing is done" — which seems so impossible that it's ridiculous to make that that superior value. But having composed alternative questions, I'm thinking the poll would still find overwhelmingly strong support for free speech.
पोस्ट्स
६४ टिप्पण्या:
Who the hell is the 28%?
"Who the hell is the 28%?"
The Democrat base . . .
I think I need to re-up my ACLU membership. Free speech needs more defenders.
Andy, your entire life is devoted to suppressing free speech.
That's what your "bigotry" harping is all about. Supressing legitimate speech by suggesting that speech opposed to your values leads to violence against gays.
Your use of the "bigotry" weapon is an attempt to link your political cause to the abuse of blacks under Jim Crow.
You are the chief offender against freedom of speech.
"I think I need to re-up my ACLU membership. Free speech needs more defenders."
I don't think "ACLU" means what you think it means, but I'm sure they'd appreciate the money.
As an aside, 72% is heartening, except at this point in time we seem to have way too many of the 28% in charge.
Yeah, the ACLU is doing great work on this issue.
They were "concerned" over the government trying to coerce Google into pulling it down.
"Concerned".
That's worth a few bucks, hunh?
So, this is how crazy it's gotten.
Andy uses the same tactics as the jihadis.
"Offense" against his favored group is a form of violence in itself.
And, Andy thinks he's a proponent of free speech.
I agree with this position, especially if the alternative involves some sort of actual recriminations against speakers in the US.
On a related note, I hope this signals we are arived at the rea end, forevermore, of anyone being taken seriously if they argue that flag burning in the US should be banned. It was always such a stupid discussion anyway.
I wonder how much the rest of the world understands just how important free speech is to America and to being American?
Every now and then the ACLU does it right--not often, mind you Certainly better than the SLPC ---But the best proponent of free speech is Nat Hentoff--and also a damn fine jazz musician.
I hope this signals we are arived at the rea end, forevermore, of anyone being taken seriously if they argue that flag burning in the US should be banned.
Apparently, one protester died from inhaling the burnt flag fumes, so I think we need to encourage mass flag burnings outside the U.S. and even supply them at embassies.
All in the name of Free Speech, of course.
Of course, any poll that samples likely voters favors Republicans.
Make of that what you will.
Andy R. said...
I think I need to re-up my ACLU membership. Free speech needs more defenders.
Oh, yes. I've noticed the ACLU just leaping to the defense of Sam Bacile.
The fake martyrdom tactic that Andy employs is precisely what has robbed us of any effective method of opposing the jihadis attack on free speech in the U.S.
Feminists started this phony tactic of claiming that women were being martyred in the streets of the U.S. The Democrats continue to consciously employ this lie with their "War on Women" rhetoric.
Gay activists picked up the phony martyrdom tactic. For those who live in echo chambers like Manhattan or Woodstock, it really begins to seems as though there is some reality to the claim that gays are being abused and murdered with impunity in the non-coastal U.S. They really believe this.
This is the backdrop for the assault on free speech in the U.S. The accusation of bigotry is intended to shut you up. Because, if you disagree with Andy, you see, you are in favor of murdering and abusing gays.
The martyrdom rhetoric of the left is precisely the same as the martyrdom rhetoric of the jihadis.
MadisonMan said...
I wonder how much the rest of the world understands just how important free speech is to America and to being American?
Given that Obama doesn't seem to understand this, (though growing up in Hawaii makes you "exotic"!) I'm guessing few.
Very few.
Roger J. said...
But the best proponent of free speech is Nat Hentoff--and also a damn fine jazz musician.
Alan Dershowitz is consistent on the Bill of Rights, regardless of where he stands on the political spectrum. He blasted Obama and the DA over the Zimmerman travesty.
And like Lieberman, he understands the GWOT.
I predict this will be an Andy v Shouting Thomas death match thread.
harrogate said...
I agree with this position, especially if the alternative involves some sort of actual recriminations against speakers in the US.
On a related note, I hope this signals we are arived at the rea end, forevermore, of anyone being taken seriously if they argue that flag burning in the US should be banned. It was always such a stupid discussion anyway.
The left overwhelmingly agrees American-flag burning is fine. Only when support for free speech interferes with the opportunity to criticize Americans does the left become confused. But why would that matter? The only explanation is that their principle of always attacking domestic opponents is more important to them than free speech.
I predict this will be an Andy v Shouting Thomas death match thread.
Since I don't respond to him, your prediction seems a little off.
Ann's right in her analysis of the wording. Nonetheless, it would be instructive to see the demographics of that 15%.
Ann's right in her analysis of the wording. Nonetheless, it would be instructive to see the demographics of that 15%.
Would Allie be in that 15%?
I would put it another way:
"Are constitutional guarantees to freedom of speech more important than offending the beliefs held by the peoples of other countries?"
AndyR: You cannot respond to ST. He has you pegged. Exactly. Like others you say you are for free speech but you don't understand or embrace the concept and in addition employ the tactics ST describes on a constant basis.
Nothing. Make sure. That's such a strong statement of the value opposing free speech that it's not surprising that so few Americans would take that side.
I'll echo my friends above that, in fact, it is shocking, surprising, and sickening that so many as 28% would answer as they did.
Of course, I do always try to console myself with the South Park truthism that, across the board, 1/4 of Americans are retarded.
Apparently, one protester died from inhaling the burnt flag fumes, so I think we need to encourage mass flag burnings outside the U.S. and even supply them at embassies. "
Sends a nice "don't fuck with the USA, even our flags will kill you" vibe, doesn't it?
Islamic cyanide-laced flags via the CIA conspiracy soon to follow.
EMD: Allie, like Andy R, would proclaim a devotion to free speech but her comments display a lack of understanding of the concept and its ramifications on sentimentalists.
Since I don't respond to him, your prediction seems a little off.
Since you just did..
Like others you say you are for free speech but you don't understand or embrace the concept and in addition employ the tactics ST describes on a constant basis.
I think your position on free speech inside the Wisconsin capitol is "Whatever Scott Walker tells us it is". That's not very consistent, is it? People this minute are getting snatched, clubbed, and arrested in NYC for no reason. Somehow I don't think you embrace their free speech either?
"People this minute are getting snatched, clubbed, and arrested in NYC for no reason"
They be snatching our people . . .
Bullshit
To me, it's not surprising that so few Americans would take that stance.
It's that ANY Americans would.
I think your position on free speech inside the Wisconsin capitol is "Whatever Scott Walker tells us it is". That's not very consistent, is it? People this minute are getting snatched, clubbed, and arrested in NYC for no reason. Somehow I don't think you embrace their free speech either?
Should the protestors have the right to continuously ruin the experience for people --- who have just as much right to the capital --- who don't want to hear the noise any longer?
As far as NYC, again, you ignore the balancing of rights.
They be snatching our people . . .
Better hide your kids.
Better hide your wife.
Since I don't respond to him, your prediction seems a little off.
I predict this will be an Andy v ndspinelli death match thread.
People this minute are getting snatched, clubbed, and arrested in NYC for no reason.
Hysterical bullshit.
Notice you can't address the topic, want to guess why that is, bozo?
Weren't there some stirrings recently north of the border...something to the effect of the Canucks starting to rethink their take on freedom of speech (for the better)?
Garage: As is often the case, you would be wrong.
Roger J. said...
But the best proponent of free speech is Nat Hentoff--and also a damn fine jazz musician.
Alan Dershowitz is consistent on the Bill of Rights, regardless of where he stands on the political spectrum. He blasted Obama and the DA over the Zimmerman travesty.
And like Lieberman, he understands the GWOT.
Singling out Jews again, are we? /sarc
garage mahal said...
I think your position on free speech inside the Wisconsin capitol is "Whatever Scott Walker tells us it is". That's not very consistent, is it?
A more accurate summary:
Those on the right accept organizing inconveniences as necessary as long as they aren't used as pretexts to prohibit speech.
Many of those on the left, including Garage, over-hype inconveniences because they feel they have to pose as martyrs on all topics and this is the best they can come up with. Contrast this to their silence on the government questioning a filmmaker.
Garage: As is often the case, you would be wrong.
Well, good.
It's heartening to see such strong defenders of free speach like And R and Harrogate support Citizens United.
Occupy Wall Street shows Obama's impotence--less people, no enthusiasm, and no results. No wonder Garage loves them. It's like looking into a mirror.
People this minute are getting snatched, clubbed, and arrested in NYC for no reason.
Except for, you know, trespassing, criminal mischief, obstructing right-of-way, vandalism, littering, etc.
Why can't #OWSFAIL apply for a permit and pick up their litter like Tea Party folks?
Why can't #OWSFAIL apply for a permit and pick up their litter like Tea Party folks?
Some of you guys are way too easy. You drop your unconditional free speech crusade after 40 comments. Totally predictable.
I fell asleep watching the "action" from the live feed. The almost-retired cop padding his pension took 5 minutes to get the zip ties on the protesters that looked like they haven't gotten up at 7AM since grammar school.
You drop your unconditional free speech crusade after 40 comments. Totally predictable.
Who's advocating unconditional free speech?
No, no, no.
Andy R. is being entirely consistent and truthful.
See, Andy R. hears that "free speech" is being threatened, and he supports free speech, so he rushes to contribute to ensuring free speech continues.
This is consistent with his own attempts to shut down free speech because Andy R. believes that only the right people, expressing the correct thoughts should have a right to free speech.
So he intends to contribute to the ACLU, which is an organization committed 100% to ensuring that only the right people expressing the correct thoughts retain their rights to free speech.
See? The circle is now squared.
"You drop your unconditional free speech crusade after 40 comments."
And it's predictable that you think permits and policing your own trash are actually conditions worth note.
I wonder how much the rest of the world understands just how important free speech is to America and to being American?
Ever been to a school board meeting, MM? Or a homeowner's association meeting? This country is full of constitutional illiterates who say they love free speech, but are astonished, angry and eventually hostile to the fact that other people have free speech, too.
Or just look at garbage - OWS protestors curtailed? "oh noes! They draggin' us away in chains! Nazis! Mittler Romney!"
The President and his Justice Department hauling an unknown filmmaker in for the thoughtcrime of embarrassing The One? - "SQUIRREL!"
"People this minute are getting snatched, clubbed, and arrested in NYC for no reason"
Maybe there is a suspicion they are in violation of their parole terms?
"What is more important: freedom of speech or avoiding offending other nations and cultures?"
Other nations: The nation of Hitler was very offended when Charlie Chaplin made the bumbling Great Dictator, the nation of Mao is very offended when we criticize their one child infanticide policy, the nations of Islamists are very offended when we refuse their Sharia, they are extremely offended when the brave among us pointed out that their prophet married a SIX years old, committed statutory rape of her when she turned NINE.
How can a govt claim to protect our freedom of speech and shut us up for stating a historical fact?
How about the cultures of the citizens living in the US? What does the govt do when a citizen is "culturally offended" by another citizen's speech? Do these "culturally offended" citizens have less protection from our govt. than the "culturally offended" foreigners on foreign soils?
You are gulled by Obama's propagnadists, aren't you?
The issue is not Freedom of Speech and offending another culture. The issue is Obama's failure to heighten security on 9/11. Every one knows the Big One is coming on or around 9/11. The issue is why Obama let our embassies unprotected in civil war raging countries.
It's easier for Obama to send Brown shirts to drag the "offender" from his bed for questioning, than for Obama to do the manly thing: to take responsibility.
The MSM propagandists did a remarkable magic: direct our attention to something else other than the fact that Obamas f*cked up big time.
Why don't we just say: shits happened, the ambassador and the others were in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Why don't we say things could be worse if Obama had not made his apology tour to Egypt and made us respected again around the world?
Why don't we go back to idolizing our most brilliant, most gracious, most everything Dear Leader for killing Osama bin Laden single handed?
Oh, where are Romney's tax returns for the last millennium?
Andy R. said...
I think I need to re-up my ACLU membership. Free speech needs more defenders.
That doesn't require an ACLU membership, nitwit. Just a spine and a willingness to defend such a thing and make your representatives do the same. Something you clearly lack.
I'm glad I was wrong about Andy and ST.
The ACLU was noticeably absent when colleges instituted speech codes to protect minorities from having to listen to opinions which hurt their feelings, made them feel excluded or which denied them their right to a stress-free education.
The ACLU was noticeably absent when colleges instituted speech codes to protect minorities from having to listen to opinions which hurt their feelings, made them feel excluded or which denied them their right to a stress-free education.
The ACLU was noticeably absent when colleges instituted speech codes to protect minorities from having to listen to opinions which hurt their feelings, made them feel excluded or which denied them their right to a stress-free education.
What are you talking about?
The ACLU, on their own website:
"Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.
That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society."
And here is a post from Volokh about the ACLU and speech codes that explains why you are being so dumb.
And STILL 15% choose the absurd, unreachable goal. About the same per cent that will answer "yes" to "Is Elvis still alive?"
28% of us cannot agree with putting freedom of speech ahead of not offending other cultures.
Enslaved minds. Useless tools.
72% is a lot higher than I would have thought it was. That gives me hope.
...and 28% flunked high school civics class (or dropped out before getting that far)!
15% are spineless appeasers, the other 13% just clueless about that Constitution thingie.
Incomprehensible to me how anyone could think that way.
Incomprehensible to me how anyone could think that way.
Perhaps Allie can explain it to us. She never got back to me when I asked her point-blank where she came down on freedom of speech.
Allie is a proud 15%er.
The ACLU was noticeably absent when colleges instituted speech codes to protect minorities from having to listen to opinions which hurt their feelings, made them feel excluded or which denied them their right to a stress-free education.
What are you talking about?
FIRE is the main force tackling those.
Not the ACLU.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा