There's *nothing* I love more than a good, fiesty Klan rally. Especially at my house.
77 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 25, 2004 at 1:17 pm
I guess my views have changed as I have gotten older. Truthfully, if I were a student in his school, I would have looked at the posters and said 'what's the big deal?'
Perhaps because I have gotten older, I am able to now see a bigger picture that I didn't see before? I don't know.
I am all for Free Speech. It is the primary concept that has made our country the greatest on earth. I guess though, getting older, made me realize that it doesn't mean we need to throw accountability out the window.
A kid turns in a term paper filled with exaggerations and slander, and it wil get rightly graded accordlingly. There is accountability there (at least for now, thank goodness).
I don't know, it's not the kid's viewpoint I have a problem with, it's his presentation. Foxnews has made it acceptable now to just throw any fallacy or opinion out as fact and it's readily accepted. (but of course, be sure and tune into Scaroborough Country to see a complete dissertation, along with graphs and pie charts, about the lies and misrepresentations in Farenheit 9/11 and hear all about how wrong it is to do that).
bhw, I agree with you about the fact that censorship is wrong. And I agree that the way the school handled it was wrong. But I have to disagree with your premise that Free Speech should run unchecked as long as it does not result in direct harm against anybody else. There is a reason why you will never see, driving down the road, a billboard covered with graphic photos of aborted fetus parts.
Should I ever be allowed to be married, I know that there will be some free speech advocates who will fight for the right of some individuals to tarnish my wedding day by standing outside the church and shouting in all our faces as we walk inside about how sodomites burn in hell. I suppose that is just going to be part of the price some of us have to pay for all of us to have freedom of speech unfettered.
But what I know now, that I didn't know when I was younger, was that even if the hate speech isn't specific about you, it still can kill. This is why the suicide rate for gay youth is 5 times the national average. When you grow up and realize you are a 'sodomite' and everybody constantly tells you that sodomites are the cause of the decay of society, then it doesn't matter if they use your name or not, the effect is still there.
Having said that, the kid should be able to go around promoting the fallacy that the left is anti-children, and it is the right that puts human life above the dollar. And more people will gravitate to the right because nobody bothers to fact check anymore, or hold people accountable for their free speech and this country will continue to go to hell in a handbasket until one day, it's a complete mess and everybody looks around and says 'wha happened?'
Free speech should not mean no accountability.
78 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 25, 2004 at 1:21 pm
thankfully though, I can now throw out paragraphs like the hell-in-a-handbasket one and not have to substantiate them with logic or reason. (although one only has to look at the ratings of foxnews to see that I actually have logic or reason in my comments).
I hear you, Boom, and I agree with your discussion of accountability and the level of discourse we're becoming used to. And I also know that gays [and others] have suffered from the speech of people who hate them. I get it, totally.
One of the problems was that there wasn't enough noise made by people who disagreed with the homophobic "agenda." I would say the same is true of your concern about this kid's exaggerations becoming accepted as truth: somebody needs to tell the other side of the story and tell it just as loudly [with perhaps less exaggeration]. Stopping his message isn't the answer. Providing the counter-message is.
I believe that words have power. So that's why I believe all perspectives should be heard. Lay all the truly ugly ideas out on the table so they can be addressed. Don't bury them underground, but DO address them.
That's all I'm saying. Because it's pretty disappointing that a student tore down his posters rather than put up her own.
And, bhw just happens to be safe from the haters. She can sit back and lecture me or the woman being harrassed by baby Kluxers about the importance of free speech while never having to pay the price herself. She can kid herself that no one was harmed by the activities of Bryan Henderson and coo about how cute those kids look in their Klan outfits. (It is just a lighthearted prank, after all.) That is the effect of white privilege.
"Eric, Phillip, anyone with moderating ability: Something must be done about RJ Elliott. #63 is beyond the pale, wholly offensive, and completely against your stated rules."
Apparently, Eric and Phil no longer enforce their rules. Mac Diva has gone back to her old ways of lying about people, calling them racists, murderers, homos, etc.
If Mac Diva is not expected to follow the rules, then I guess they were repealed when I wasn't paying attention. So therefore I was violating nothing.
If comment #63 gets deleted, half of MD's comments better be erased as well.
"Nor do I agree with bhw that this thread is being conducted civilly by everyone. It features a white man referring to a woman of color as a [edited]"
That's your twisted take on it.
The way I see it, skin color is irrelevant to this. What happened is that one poster (myself), sick and tired of being called a murderous racist (and seeing others called the same sorts of things) by another poster (that would be you), decided to get personal as well. And now you're whining about it, as if you haven't been guilty of the same "uncivil" behavior here dozens of times.
Naturally, Mac would like to turn this into a racial thing, and claim "victim" status. How very typical.
But for the ingrate known as RJ Elliott being a Right Wing white man harassing women of color he would have been banned from this site by now. He called Ms. Tek a '[edited]' weeks ago. Now, he has called me a '[edited].' Similar language was used toward Sandra Smallson, before she stopped commenting. If RJ Elliott were to use the same language toward bhw or Dawn Olsen, the response would be quite different. The situation speaks for itself.
Ah... now I have an idea who probably said all that bullshit to paypal about me... Something about me having "pornographic photos" and selling my "services".
RJ... NO that was not a play on my Website Name. I have NEVER EVER called myself "tekwh0re" on Blogcritics you little lying piece of shit (Well Eric, Phillip... since RJ can call people "cunts and whores" all the time on here any not get banned then I can call him a MOTHERFUCKER- except I'm sure even his mother wishes she swallowed that night. Eric, Phillip, for once, I challenge you to speak up on THAT matter as that I have been here longer than RJ and YOU KNOW the name (one) I used before and why I changed it. So who is lying NOW RJ? Moreover, whatever I decide to call my website is my business and not YOURS.
Finally, you lying sack of shit, you called me a whore not "months" ago but two months ago:
Which is interesting because I said something to Phillip about that and he said he would remove it but he didn't.
You know, when I debate people, I don't make a habit of calling names nor to I play dirty until someone starts with me "off the cuff". I was taught how to debate my point in school without getting personal or call names. As I have said a million times before... I DO NOT TAKE SHIT, however. If you want to "tussle" with me, I don't mind going low too.
But see Eric, you are always pandering to you psychotic, right winger crowd. They can call names left and right and all you do is try to "smooth things over".
I suppose bad publicity is good publicity. So long as there is attention then its okay, right? The terms "cunt" and "whore" are okay in a debate with women, huh?
Which goes back to my original point and why I took on the name "tekwh0re" a long time ago.
When you stand up against a man, first you are a "bitch", if that doesn't rattle your cages, then you become a "slut" and a "whore". If that doesn't work, "lesbo" and "dyke" are next... finally when they really can't prove their point or shake you in any way possible, you become a "cunt".
All it shows is a lack of intelligence and skills on the party that feels the need to toss names out first. They don't know what to say and they are so frustrated by the limitations of their own mind, they start to just spew crap (much like most of RJ's postings).
But hey, double standards... whatever you can get for content on here, right Eric? Doesn't matter if it is crap, plagiarized, or otherwise. People want to constantly call other people names? We'll just make "nicey-nicey" speak out of both sides of our mouths and wait for things to "blow over". We'll just make some lame ass yahoo group to "complain" about other blogcritcs as nothing still is done.
And what is even the most telling of all, Eric... YOU then after some things blow over support and then praise the very people who have caused the problems. You say you are fair but to be honest not once have I seen you praise Mac Diva for something but I have seen you praise Al Barger and EJ Eliott- most recently saying his posts are getting better.
What a load of CRAP.
But hey... I'm not angry with RJ Elliot- I know the type of kid he is... He can't help what he is. However I can blame YOU Eric. You can decide who stays and who goes. You can decide what the quality level is that you want.
Someone said in the blogcritics group that they like it when people start crap in comments because it adds a lot of comments and brings to the discussion.
Yeah, I can see how a lot of "cunts" and "whores" flying back in forth really adds value to this site.
And yes, I am calling both Eric and Phillip out in public on this one because you are both wrong and unfair beyond the point of doubt here. As IF this is the first time that RJ Idiot has resorted to this kind of behavior because of his very limited mental capacity.
What a load of bullshit.
86 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 26, 2004 at 10:13 am
The terms "c*nt" and "wh*re" are okay in a debate with women, huh?
Ms. Tek, I agree with your post. I had mentioned several times on this thread, about having to do something like get married with individuals shouting 'you fags burn in hell' in my face as I walked up the church steps. The response I got (still on this thread for review), was that ANY kind of censorship is wrong and the correct answer is to counter it with speech just as loudly.
Which means when I do get married, I'll need to make sure everyone has a megaphone.
So it seems the correct thing to do, when someone calls you the 'c' word, is to shout back just as loudly, 'Dick!'. Then nobody's rights were infringed upon, (which apparently trumps your right to not be verbally assaulted) and all the people across the world, who surf the internet can stumble across this thread and see 'c*nt' and 'dick' all over the place and know what proud and free speakers Americans are!
She can sit back and lecture me or the woman being harrassed by baby Kluxers about the importance of free speech while never having to pay the price herself.
First, it's not a lecture. It's a comment thread, a discussion. Second, just because I'm not a racial minority doesn't mean someone else's "speech" hasn't affected me negatively.
She can kid herself that no one was harmed by the activities of Bryan Henderson and coo about how cute those kids look in their Klan outfits.
Nice fabrication about the kiddie Klanners. Once again, QUOTE ME. I noticed you never bothered to quote me the last time I challenged you to. That's because you can't.
"That is the effect of white privilege."
Everyone's beliefs are shaped, in part, by their experiences. In my experience, it DOES NOT HELP to silence political speech you don't like, no matter how ugly it gets.
I said twice in this thread that a hostile environment should not be allowed to be created in public school. And I don't think one was created by this incident.
I'm sorry you fall back on racial divisions when people on the left stand up for the rights of people you dislike. Go ahead and paint me as a Klan sympathizer if you want. It speaks more about you than it does about me.
Freedom of speech has a price, Boom. Would I like to see protesters at your wedding? No. Would I like to see your wedding turned into a shouting match? No.
But the alternative is worse. How can you be sure it won't be your speech that is censored next?
Boom, will you be chiming in about Mac Diva's accountability for her speech about me, since it's so important for people to talk about FACTS and not exaggerate?
Jesus. I hadn't read this topic because I didn't find it interesting, but then I see this. You people get too worked up and I've been out too late to process all your petty feuds.
Despite my ironic take on censorship that no one responded to recently, here's the deal with your silly problems:
RJ's comment #63 was fine until he said the four-letter word. He's commented upon how he's had problems with women in the past due to that word :) I think the reasonable solution is to go back and just delete those four inflammatory letters from his post if you folks really insist -- I'd imagine RJ wouldn't care all that much. I don't even think that's necessary, though.
I disagree with RJ's simian political views 100% of the time and I've called him stupid more than anyone else has in my short time commenting on this site, but I respect his ability to say what he wants. If he or anyone else truly deserved to be censored, I would say so, but I think we need a fairly high threshold for policing thought and speech.
I'm farther left and a better leftie than any of the rest of the left-wingers on the site -- and I think I'm the only one of the few liberals who's not a sista (but I do notice that we're all people of color) -- but I think there's a real irony in calling for censorship in a topic about free speech. For what it's worth, the school might have a legal right to determine that politically motivated posters aren't approved for posting, but the kid shouldn't be suspended for being an ass. Chomsky would probably object (as I do) to the idea that a student should be faced with bureaucratic punishment for poorly chosen satire and misguided political sloganeering.
I've had MacDiva incorrectly jump over a comment of mine about racism once before and I corrected her, but I think she has a right to her occasionally difficult speech just as RJ has a right to present simpleton, contrarian positions as well. MacDiva and I seem to agree a lot on politics lately, but I think calling for the limitation of speech is a dangerous precedent. Otherwise, people couldn't converse about topics where they CAN communicate (even if it's nearly impossible on others). Anyone whose identity or beliefs are often in the minority (as mine are) should caution against invoking censorship. Using a four-letter word that's rougly equivalent to MFer is unpleasant but not injurious nor a libelous attack on the specifics of someone's life. It's a generic, dismissive swear word. Deal.
A great example of how to deal with unpleasant speech is the recent topic about the C-word itself. RJ (or Olsen or someone) brought up the word and we quickly decided that anyone who's stupid enough to use the word deserves to hear the scorn of the woman they use it toward. RJ, you're a douche for using it again after that discussion. But if we start censoring certain words, that would mean we couldn't have a frank discussion like that one, a meta-discussion about the use of that word in society and its impact.
I am as mystified as anyone about the Al Barger support and I do sense there's a strong libertarian/right bent to the site that I can't explain. However, I don't think any of those fools should be censored. You have a right to be wrong and I have a right to challenge you into silence. Not that I'm a model of decorum, but I'd much RATHER be able to read and respond to ridiculous or racist claims. Look at the Cosby thread for example. People like Jim Carruthers, Al Barger, and a few other reactionary white folks I'm forgetting made indefensible claims about race and were argued into silence. The best way to shut up a sexist, homophobe or a racist is to present them with the truth. As a minority myself, I'd much rather have bigotry out in the open than the quite politeness of silent distance and shallow tolerance.
But then I don't lose many arguments. You were a debater too, Scary Spice?
See? We can kid each other without it necessarily being personally hateful.
None of us who regularly comment, even the grandfather types, are particularly mature but it's particulary immature to ask "administrators" to use authority to enforce maturity (whatever that means). Sometimes it's fun to be immature about serious matters and I can't think of anyone of you in this dispute who isn't occasionally "off the cuff." Most of the "serious" political debate on the site is relatively shallow and sparse to begin with, so "enforcing" certain types of speech would take away most of what the site currently is. I, for one, would find it very boring to read and I would imagine there would be fewer regular commenters than there already are if we were all walking on eggshells and holding back.
When people call me a "whore," I admit it because they're right. When people say I'm pretentious and arrogant, I admit it. When people are right about something stupid I said, I admit it. Stop being offended so easily, folks. RJ seems to have a fairly decent sense of humor about himself. If he calls you a cunt, just remind him that he reads "get a bigger penis" websites.
I mean, it's RJ. How hard is it to set him straight?
Also, if a discussion gets too heated, just tell the person honestly that you were offended by their comments and tone in addressing you.
I don't think anyone's such a tool that they'd persist in attacking if you asked them to stop.
OK? I'm teaching you all how to live human lives, slowly but surely.
That is all.
92 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 26, 2004 at 10:54 am
Everyone's beliefs are shaped, in part, by their experiences. In my experience, it DOES NOT HELP to silence political speech you don't like, no matter how ugly it gets.
okay, you've put the word 'political' in there, so I agree with this sentence, although I think making a statement that liberals value the dollar above human life does not qualify as a political sentence.
What about religious speech though? Which is more important, the right of a religious person to stand on a street corner and exercise freedom of speech, or the right of an individual who is condemned by said religion to exercise his right to be free FROM religious persecution?
And for the record, I agree with you, that you standing up for the right of KKK kids to have free speech, does not mean you are a KKK sympathizer. However, I think kids purposely wearing white robes, which have a history of murder, lynching, torture and fear, around individuals who for generations were victims by white robe wearers, does NOT fall under 'free speech'. Now free speech includes the wardrobe we wear? Sorry bhw, I respect and like you immensely hon, we agree probably on most everything else, but such an action is specifically designed to intimidate and cause fear and terror. To me, that falls more under 'terrorism' than it does 'free speech'.
If wardrobe falls under free speech, then what about no wardrobe? Why can't those of us who choose so, walk around naked without penalty?
Free speech means different things to different people. If we all had a right to just put up posters of our thoughts, then this world would have a hell of a lot of paper trash. I don't agree that taking the guys posters down (which were done in the heat of the moment and irrationally), is violating his freedom of speech. He can write an editorial in the paper, he can stand out on the school grounds and speak his mind to other students, etc.
To me, the unlimited use of being able to 'post' your posters, or the clothes you wear, etc. do not fall under the ever-growing umbrella of 'free speech'.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that and once again, I don't think you are a KKK sympathizer. I know that you standing up for the right of someone to condemn me, doesn't mean you condemn me personally.
If we're going to start censoring people, I nominate myself. I find myself highly offensive lately and DEMAND immediate correction for our community. We MUST establish values for what we believe and whom we exclude. None of you spoke up when you had your chance to establish the new glorious order of censorship and now look what's happened. Just look! You can only blame yourselves for the chaos of unruly speech -- I offered you an iron fist, whips, and chains and you turned your collective backs on me. Jack Ryan, interestingly, gave me his number.
Phillip -- please censor any comments I have made about politics, animals, or midgets lately, including that last offensive sentence above. I think it's necessary for our community and I offer myself as a sacrifical example to re-establish order among the hoi polloi.
IMMEDIATELY, forthwith, expediently with all due haste, let us embrace the spirit of the times and be the vanguard of enforcing appropriate, high-quality speech. It is up to the intellectuals to take a stand now for pretty talkin.
For the third time, that is all. And I trust Phillip to make the phrase "that is all" mean something for us.
94 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 26, 2004 at 11:45 am
let us embrace the spirit of the times and be the vanguard of enforcing appropriate, high-quality speech. It is up to the intellectuals to take a stand now for pretty talkin.
This sarcasm misses the point. As for 'pretty talkin', refer back to my thought of a billboard of graphic photos of bloody fetus's. It's not allowed in society, but it isn't censoring the pro-lifers. They have plenty of other ways to speak out.
So all students can put up posters wherever they want and it's automatically protected by free speech? What about a student who wants to rent one of those signs that you can pull by a truck, and who parks it right in the school parking lot? Is that free speech too?
Was the kid denied ANY other avenue to express his point? THAT is censorship.
Kids can wear KKK clothes to intimidate and we must put up with it even if it's not 'pretty' because it's now speech? Why can't I walk around buck ass naked as self-expression and not be penalized?
Censorship means silencing a person's voice. It doesn't mean denying them one avenue.
Telling a person to not shout in my face that I will burn in hell, but allowing him to espouse that view on his own website, newspaper or pulpit is NOT censorship.
What about religious speech though? Which is more important, the right of a religious person to stand on a street corner and exercise freedom of speech, or the right of an individual who is condemned by said religion to exercise his right to be free FROM religious persecution?
Well, you're not gonna like this, but ....There has to be a balance, because the first amendment provides for both, freedom of religion for the individual and freedom from government-endorsed religion. So, the religious person on the street has the right to promote his religion.
Unfortunately, we're free only from government sponsored religious persecution, not the persecution [verbally speaking] of, say, the Catholic Church. They're free to [remain hypocrites] teach their "abomination" crap. Now, if the public schools started their day with a Bible reading, I'm with you 100% because that's government sponsored religion.
And for the record, I agree with you, that you standing up for the right of KKK kids to have free speech,
Here's where your earlier points about factless exaggerations come into play. I never said any such thing. I never addressed the rights of those kids at all. MD quoted the story and then put words into my mouth. She has created the impression that I said someting I didn't. So your points about the kid's posters are well taken.
However, she MD has the right to do that. And I have the right to point out her lies.
Now free speech includes the wardrobe we wear?
Actually, I think it does. Seen anyone wearing an offensive t-shirt lately? That said, we do have "decency" laws, as you noted, that prevent us from walking around naked. As for the kids in the white robes, they have the right to wear them on the street, at home, etc. When they get on the school bus, the bus driver and students have a right to protest that they're creating a environment where they feel physically threatened. If that's the case, then the robes go [and hopefully the kids get some intervention]. I draw the line at physical intimidation at school, which I said before.
Free speech means different things to different people.
And that's the problem, really. Today it's kids with posters at school that attack the Left. Tomorrow it's who? We all have different standards for what we like and don't like. Who gets to choose what gets said and what doesn't [or how it gets said]? The people with the most power? That scares me.
I know that you standing up for the right of someone to condemn me, doesn't mean you condemn me personally.
Thank you. I appreciate that you can see the difference. I think I'm well on the record for what my own beliefs are, how I vote, etc.
So I do indeed agree to disagree with you on this topic. I seem to keep getting more adamant about free speech as I get older [I think we're about the same age]. I used to think it was better to censor certain things, and now I don't.
I think the Bush administration has something to do with that. I can't get Ari Fleisher's "Now is the time for Americans to watch what they say" out of my head.
96 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 26, 2004 at 12:24 pm
It's an odd world we live in, where we can't show the flesh we are born in, because it is 'indecent', yet as long as we use man-made items like billboards, shirts or posters, practically no rules whatsoever apply.
Physical intimidation is off limits but not verbal harassment? So what are women who live in verbally abusive relationships griping about? Don't their husbands have freedom of speech? Having attempted suicide when I was younger, I know that living under verbal abuse in the house is the equivalent as living under constant verbal abuse within society.
I worry about the Patriot Act, and the loss of our freedom of speech too. ESPECIALLY under the morons running the country. I just believe in our quest to make sure that doesn't happen, we don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
"Ah... now I have an idea who probably said all that bullshit to paypal
about me... Something about me having "pornographic photos" and selling my
"services"."
Why would I try to get you in trouble with PayPal, when I was one of those who donated to your site?
"RJ... NO that was not a play on my Website Name. I have NEVER EVER called myself
"tekwh0re" on Blogcritics"
Hmm. If you say so. My mistake. I must have been confused because "TekWh0re" is in your Website name. So, it wasn't a play on your BC name, but your Website name. Whatever. Mea culpa.
"whatever I decide to call my website is my business and not
YOURS."
Oh, you can call it whatever you want. And then I can comment on what you call it. Free speech, and all...
"Finally, you lying sack of shit, you called me a whore not "months" ago but
two months ago"
One month = singular
Two months = plural
How am I "lying" here?
"Which is interesting because I said something to Phillip about that and he said
he would remove it but he didn't"
Aww, poor baby. You can call people vile names and hope for the slaughter of every Jew in Israel, no problem. But when someone calls you by your Website name, you run to the administrators and demand censorship. You poor thing you...
RJ, you flat out were calling me a whore. You know it. I know it.
And if I say so?
Well, you lying sack of shit, see if can find ANY articles under "tekwh0re" up on this site.
You can call people vile names and hope for the slaughter of every Jew in Israel, no problem.
Once again, you are liar. I NEVER said that I hoped for the "slaughter of every Jew in Israel". You know I didn't say that and anyone who is a regular on here knows I have never said that. Also, I don't make a habit of calling people "motherfuckers" or "assholes". etc... I don't EVER call people names first and it also takes A LOT to get me to toss them. That is called being an adult- something that you have no clue about.
And lets get something straight= Freedom of speech DOES NOT mean the FREEDOM to harass people. If you want to write a book with words whore and cunt all in them, fine. But if you think it is okay for you to call someone whores and cunts in a conversation I would LOVE to see you try that with a cop or a judge.
I don't think the "would you say this in front of a cop or judge" standard is a good one for free speech. Half the things we say in normal conversation wouldn't be appropriate in a courtroom and would get you held in contempt. I'd imagine the same is true in talking to a police officer. Website comments shouldn't be written as if people are corresponding with authorities because, quite frankly, none of you are cops or judges. And if you are, find something better to do with your time because you shouldn't say half the things you say yourselves.
Tek: I never called you a name, by the way. You started that whole business on your own. What was your reason in my case? Other than my being wonderful and adorable, of course.
BoomCrash: I'll tell you a little story. I knew this kid in high school who was on a team with me and we had a lot of the same friends, hung out together. He was kind of a dumb guy, but I didn't know how dumb until someone told me that he had a secret mock celebration of Hitler's birthday and did some mock salute thing as a joke. What made this even more ridiculous was that this kid was 100% Polish -- you'd think he'd know some history and what Hitler did to his people. Not to mention that there were a lot of Jewish kids in our class -- I think a good number of people vaguely knew about his mock Hitler thing but he was so stupid that no one took him seriously. When I heard about it, I told him how stupid it was for a Polish kid to make Hitler jokes and I didn't hear much about that kind of crap after that. For some reason there will always be immature kids who think arch-conservative posturing is cool. They think it's cool to use slurs because it's not PC -- most of the time, I don't think it's even actual hate. I don't think that the answer is to ban their ability to speak -- unless it clearly crosses the line -- but rather to offer counter-speech that exposes the folly of prejudiced speech and to educate those who utter stupid things. Especially with young people, the more you seem afraid of a bad idea, the more attractive it becomes to them, kind of a forbidden fruit syndrome like smoking. The best way to deal with hurtful words is to demystify them and expose their uselessness to the context in which they were uttered.
That is all.
100 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 26, 2004 at 4:57 pm
Bob, nobody in your story, including yourself told him to stop, so I don't see the analogy.
I do see a double standard though.
KKK clothes, and obscene t-shirts fall under 'freedom of speech'. But those aren't speech, those are expressions. So SOME expressions are protected. (KKK white robes don't really have text on them, they are symbolic expressions, that people here agree are an 'expression of free speech'.)
Yet if I wanted to use my nakedness as a symbolic expression, the same as a white robe which is now protected by the free speech amendment, it violates decency laws.
So free speech is already selectively applied.
And that is why I get the response of 'just deal with it' when hate speech is shoved at me.
How come nobody is wondering if ALL avenues were shut down for him? What if it was just posters that were the problem? Didn't the principal say he could hand out leaflets? This isn't censorship going on. This is people who are not on the receiving end of a hateful topic, saying yet again 'deal with it'. It's all selective. And here this kid wasn't censored and everybody's all panicking his rights were violated.
I'm not going to be able to show you all the consequences of this, on this thread, so I guess I'll just leave it at that and say that is all for me.
Tek on Jews: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/18/235745.php
"if a huge tidal wave came and pushed the current state of Israel into the sea, it would be the best thing in the world."
"all the Israelis can go to hell too. Just blow them all the fuck up and be done with it. That whole area has caused more world instability in the last 80 years than any other. BLOW ALL OF THEM UP. So fucking sick of the fucking holocaust shit. Time to get over it."
"Some of us are tired of it [hearing about the Holocaust]. YOU SUCK IT UP. DEAL. GROW THE FUCK UP"
First, the impression that bhw is promoting -- that free speech is absolute -- is false. There are many legal restrictions on speech that do not violate the First Amendment. Steve (Boom) already referred to time, place and manner restrictions. Others include restrictions relating to public property and those addressing incitement, which makes speech action.
Second. Public school students have fewer free speech rights than just about anyone. The claim that posters can be posted at a student's whim, in defiance of teachers and officials is ludicrous. Even without getting into free speech, the teachers and other staff get to decide what can be on the walls of the school. (Yes, one might argue content discrimination, but only after establishing there is permission for political content at all.) I suspect Bryan Henderson lied often and largely in his narrative. For example, just how likely is it that another student would know of and go to the same web site he did to print out political protest posters to be hung on the wall at school? The little rascal has blinded some adults with bullsh!t, but not me.
Third. Allowing disruptive behavior results in escalation of the behavior. As Boom and I have both said, 'Heimler' Henderson could have spoken his objections. Instead, he purports to have put up posters, claimed the time of administrators to whine and incited protests in the parking lot of the school.
In class, I would have possibly created a hypothetical showing where the disruption might go. Instead, a breaking news story did it for me -- the Ku Klux Klan kids. Henderson is about a step from the KKK kids and two steps from causing actual violence. This is where claims of an absolute right to free speech lead. bhw has chosen to characterize my point about her support for Henderson implying support for the KKK kids a 'lie.' However, she has not expressed any disapproval of the KKK kids.
My own area of interest in regard to free speech is quasi-public places. I have some old blog entries I will put up if I can find them. (Blogger has a strong appetite for its own archives.)
I have also written fairly often about the neo-Confederate movement and its efforts to cause disruption of public schools. That is usually done by encouraging groups of white students to wear tee-shirts with the Confederate flag and, often, a picture of black people picking cotton, on them, to school. Then, Kirk Lyons, the Aryan Nations and neo-Confederate leader, will claim the shirts aren't disruptive and threaten to sue if the children are disciplined. Some school districts, poorly informed about their rights under the law, cave. Others send him packing. He has never won a lawsuit, despite filing scores.
I must say I find bhw's attitude selfish in addition to being inaccurate legally. I am not gay. But, for me to be dismissive of the harm that might occur to homosexuals being harassed by the Bryan Hendersons of the world would be short-sighted and self-centered. As I said earlier, if Matt Hale's follower had seen the bhw walking down the street he would have waved and said 'Hi.' Me? Shot dead. Bob, too, if he is identifiably not white. Maybe Boom, if he 'looks' gay. Benjamin Smith began his jihad with pamphlets and posters, just like Bryan Henderson. In summary: I am not willing sacrifice our right not to be harassed, assaulted or even killed to bhw's support for absolute free speech.
Bob, did you read Bryan Henderson's screed, cited in the link? That is where the pay dirt is.
Yes, that clearly hows how "I hope for the slaughter of every Jew in Israel"
You are such a moronic tool, its amazing.
There is no statement there about me wishing or hoping "slaughter". There is no statement about me wishing Jews specifically. I said ISRAELIS- go look up the population of Israel. Jews, Europeans, Americans, Arabs. Furthermore, people who read that thread also knew when I said BLOW THEM ALL UP that means the Palestinians, the Israelis, and every other person over there who cannot stop shooting at each other and causing problems for the rest of the world. Unlike you, RJ, I don't discriminate by race nor religion. If you are pain in the ass, you are a pain in the ass. Period.
Being sick of the Holocaust crap has NOTHING to do with wanting to go and "slaughter Jews". I am also sick of the slavery shit. Does this mean that I want to go and slaughter blacks?
But thanks for quoting me directly. It only shows how you lie and misrepresent. I think its clear now why you got such a bad grade on you exam paper. If that is how you cite things to prove your point, my suggestion would be re-do high school and perhaps thow in a logic class in there if your brain can handle it.
Then again, if you brain is the size of your dick, I am afraid there is no hope for you. Poor child. Perhaps that explains a lot.
I believe I recall the entry Ms. Tek is referring to. It was about getting fed up with the behavior of people to the point of misanthropy or wishing they would go away. It was not an attack on Jews any more so than any other group in the Middle East.
"There is no statement there about me wishing or hoping "slaughter"."
Milions dead wouldn't be a "slaughter"?
"There is no statement about me wishing Jews specifically."
Interesting that, of the 200 or so countries in the world, the ONE with a majority-Jewish population is the one you hope is destroyed. (And in the same thread that you attack Jews for "whining" about the Holocaust...)
"I said ISRAELIS- go look up the population of Israel."
It's mostly Jewish people. The only majority-Jewish country on the planet.
"Jews, Europeans, Americans, Arabs."
So, what you are saying is that you would like to see genocide against not just Jewish Israelis, but NON-Jewish Israelis as well? Some defense...
"I think its clear now why you got such a bad grade on you exam paper."
I don't know of any "exam paper" I've gotten a "bad" grade on. I DO know of a "research paper" that I got a "mediocre" grade on, most likely because the pro-communist professor disagreed with my political point-of-view. No such problems in any of my other classes, though.
"If that is how you cite things to prove your point, my suggestion would be re-do high school and perhaps thow in a logic class in there if your brain can handle it."
Very poor syntax here, as well as two typos. Ironic...
First, the impression that bhw is promoting -- that free speech is absolute -- is false.
Never said that. I talked about what I think the kid's rights are in his school and I acknowledged we have some limits on free speech [reading the Bible over a loudspeaker in public school, for example].
I did not give the impression that free speech is absolute. I talked about what I thought should have been allowed in this case. That said, I think free speech should be almost absolute. That's my opinion.
I suspect Bryan Henderson lied often and largely in his narrative. For example, just how likely is it that another student would know of and go to the same web site he did to print out political protest posters to be hung on the wall at school?
It's very likely since they're all members of the same chapter of the organization.
Here's what the kid said: At the end of the day, my fellow PW [Protest Warrior] chapter members and I felt it was time to fight back and strike at the public education indoctrination machine that seemed to be running out of control. Our school desperately needed some ideological balance, so we decided that the next day we would up the ante and place 500 signs in the halls of the school.
The story about him that RJ linked to is posted on the Protest Warrior web site. You know, the organization to which he and his friends belong. So I think it's highly likely that they all know about the website of their parent organization.
Henderson is about a step from the KKK kids and two steps from causing actual violence.
Again, where's the crystal ball?
This is where claims of an absolute right to free speech lead. bhw has chosen to characterize my point about her support for Henderson implying support for the KKK kids a 'lie.'
You said I "cooed" over how cute they look in their robes and that I'd invite them over to dinner [a.k.a, that I support the content of their message]. That's a lie. But that's the game you play: if I don't agree with you on an issue that involves race, then I'm a KKK sympathizer.
I'm a free speech advocate, and that goes for everybody.
However, she has not expressed any disapproval of the KKK kids.
I don't need to bow to your demands to show my anti-kkk card. But here's how it goes, which is what I said in my last comment: the kids have the right to wear the robes in public. You don't have to like it; you just have to acknowledge it. They don't have the right to wear them on the school bus if their intent is to threaten the bus driver or students [this intent has yet to be determined, according to the article you linked to].
I understand the powerful symbolism of the robes, but I don't think they should be against the law.
Does that make me a KKK sympathizer? Probably only in your mind.
Don't feel bad. MD attacks everybody with racial slurs when they don't agree with her fringe opinions 100% of the time.
Shark, for example, is a hard-core liberal. But he's on her shit-list too, for not agreeing 100% with every word she types.
Mac seems to turn every thread she participates in, regardless of the original topic, into a cesspool of divisive racial politics. I'd be surprised if, given a full accounting, more than half of her comments didn't accuse someone of racism, discrimination, bigotry, or the like.
Anyway. You are to be respected, bhw, for stating your opinion, even if it counters that of the party line. Good job. We need more independent thinkers! :-]
Back to the topic. I just saw a headline today about gay pride parades around the world.
How long ago would these expressions have been stifled?
Oh, wait, it last month:
A gay pride parade planned earlier this month in Warsaw, Poland, was banned by Mayor Lech Kaczynski, who said he feared clashes with opponents planning their own demonstration.
So here we have an example of people in authority using the "we're just trying to keep everyone safe" tactic to squelch speech. I'll let someone else comment:
"The ban on demonstrating for lesbians and gays is an infringement on basic rights," said Volker Beck, a lawmaker in Germany's Greens party. "That is in no way acceptable."
I have no problem with a pro-gay demonstration. Or a pro-polygamy demonstration. Or a pro-marriage-is-for-one-man-and-one-woman-only demonstration.
Or a pro-Ku-Klux-Klan demonstration. Or a pro-reparations-for-slavery demonstration. Or a pro-Black-Panthers-and-whites-are-devils demonstration.
I have no problem with any of these demonstrations. Because I support the First Amendment.
Others do not share this opinion. And THAT is the struggle we face (as I pointed out in this thread's original post).
I find it HIGHLY ironic that this thread, which began with a post on the fragility of free speech, has incited (from some of the usual suspects) calls for censorship, both on BlogCritics as well as the in larger American culture.
I believe the ACLU now owes me an honorary award, or something, for this bit of allegory...
112 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 27, 2004 at 2:41 am
bhw, your point is taken. I did say that he shouldn't have been censored, but since he was given other outlets, I still don't think he was.
"The ban on demonstrating for lesbians and gays is an infringement on basic rights,"
It is. Right(s) as in plural. One of the key differences in the two is that he just went around slapping disruptive posters everywhere. In the other instance, we get a permit with the city, arrange with the police for security, work with the city to create a parade route, etc.
i.e. we exercise our right of peaceful assembly. We exercise our right of free speech and we exercise our right to petition. Most of those parades have at the end keynote speakers who discuss issues and equal rights groups or political groups will be there to sign people up, etc.
If people don't like our parades, they know beforehand and stay away. It's not the same as a teen slapping posters in the hallway.
I love free speech and I am so thankful that we live in a time progressive enough that we can do parades, and I think that teen should be able to speak his views too. But we all should live by the same rules. Do you think we should be able to decide how, when, and where 100,000 of us should meet, without making any arrangements for it, beforehand?
With free speech should come responsibility and accountability and not censorship. We do agree, bhw, just not on the fact that he was censored.
Boom, sometimes I wonder who has more stamina in this discussion, me or you. Every time I think you and I have done the wrap-up, one of us comes back with something new.
Anyway, good point about multiple rights being exercised in parades/protests, as well as the prepration.
Well, bhw has made one thing clear: When it comes to the harm done minorities under the cover of free speech, she is in bed with a particularly gruesome Neanderthal, RJ Elliott. The situation is an example of why many people of color don't really trust most white liberals. Just when you think you can, out comes the equivalent of a knife in your back, ie., support of the most retrograde of white people.
And, no, I do not support a nasty old white man from Texas who was has the values of a member of the White Citizens Council circa 1960 or so. (They believed they were liberal because the Ku Klux Klan was more violent.) Shark's attitudes are stuck in that time regardless of what he calls himself. He was already in his 30s when the civil rights laws of 1964 and 1965 were passed. He never made it past white supremacy. He showed up at Blogcritics, learned I was a bright woman of color and began harassing me from his very first post. (After all, he knows what my place is supposed to be.) Following me from thread to thread spewing abuse. Something like 70 or 75 percent of his comments are probably attacks on me. I have absolutely no empathy for him.
"When I heard about it, I told him how stupid it was for a Polish kid to make Hitler jokes and I didn't hear much about that kind of crap after that."
That's where I meant to imply that I told my dumb jock acquaintance to stop. I think with all young people, you can't just say something's forbidden or just say stop without giving a reason or they'll be more attracted to what you prohibit. Being an extreme shock value conservative is fun and easy, just like being the future Elf King of Indiana.
I don't know which link you're talking about, MacDiva. It's lost in the gazillion comments on this topic. If you re-post it, I'll read it.
I'll have to read that link and some of the boring substantive, legalistic discussion later. There's a reason I didn't want to become a lawyer.
For what it's worth, I'm less tolerant of racial slurs and injurious words of that sort that carry a historical legacy with them than I am commonly offensive speech like RJ employed. I absolutely don't think politically controversial speech by right-wing Neanderthals (or left-wing, broken-wing) should be censored. I do support the rights of the most retrogade white people to offer their viewpoints. I can't imagine a scenario where I wouldn't, as long as it's an honest perspective and not a blatant attempt to incite hatred. We are already seeing examples of censorship of the left and privacy violations of left-wing activists and these incidents will only increase with today's cultural climate -- I think the old "slippery slope" caution might actually be true today.
Public nudity is different than speech, legally. I'm not as up on the legal challenges to peformance art, but that might be the only situation where your example would make sense.
How on Earth would one begin to have the state censor abusive speech in the home? I do empathize with that experience, but I don't think it's the government's job to monitor speech constantly.
I'm really hungry. It seems like you people had quite an exciting Saturday night :)
BHW has a good point about critical thinking in the classroom. I highly doubt that anyone teaches a political writer as "correct" in a dogmatic way; rather, a good teacher would teach it as worthy of interest and analysis.
We also shouldn't pretend that there is such a thing as an objective curriculum. There's been so much written in the debate about the literary canon, but all pedagogy is shaded by the assumptions and prejudices of administrators, teachers, and texts. The answer isn't to shut out debate or to pander to the silliest forms of inclusion (like letting students waste time debating creationism in a biology class), but rather to teach critical thinking skills so students can seek more information on their own and make up their own minds.
That kid might be right in saying he has a poor teacher, given her reaction to those events. Rigidity and reductionism in ideas often leads to similarly sweeping, broad critiques without nuance.
I'm not really interested in the legal discussion or the kid's actual case itself, though, as you can tell.
When it comes to the harm done minorities under the cover of free speech, she is in bed with a particularly gruesome Neanderthal, RJ Elliott.
The Bill of Rights makes strange bedfellows, doesn't it?
The situation is an example of why many people of color don't really trust most white liberals. Just when you think you can, out comes the equivalent of a knife in your back, ie., support of the most retrograde of white people.
Yes, white liberals really just pretend to support things like Affirmative Action. When push comes to shove, we're only interested in banding together with other whites and maintaining the white status quo. We're white, and that's all it ever boils down to for us. White. White. White.
I support the First Amendment. If you can't see the difference between supporting a right and supporting the messages that some people use that right to spread, MD, then that's your problem.
I won't walk away from my position on this matter or any other simply because it doesn't fit the liberal talking points.
We also shouldn't pretend that there is such a thing as an objective curriculum.
Excellent point. Unfortunately, I don't remember any curricula not being presented as objective until college. Before that, there was no questioning, analysis, etc. I would much rather have had cultural/historical context and biases [including how the "canon" got to be the "canon"] brought into the discussion in public school.
Maybe things are different now in public schools, but I'm not so sure.
121 -
boomcrashbaby
Jun 27, 2004 at 9:59 am
Public nudity is different than speech, legally.
I know. It probably wasn't the best analogy. It wasn't so much a comparison to speech as it was to wearing a robe, which had been decided on this board, constituted speech. It was a stretch, but the point is in there somewhere. :-)
Tek is now demanding in the BC Yahoo group that I be permanently banned from BlogCritics. (By the way, she is also attempting to formulate a plot to make Bob A. Booey "go away.")
All over one little word. One little word that has been arbitrarily deemed by society to be "profane" even though the exact definition of the term was quite apropos in the context of my usage of it.
The endless personal attacks and defamatory claims of others are expected to be ignored. But one little R-rated insult is apparently grounds for not mere censorship, but actual expulsion.
I think my point about some on the extreme-Left has been proven. Thanks for playing along.
Thats right RJ. It is UNACCEPTABLE for you to be calling people cunts and whores in discussion. Period.
And that being censorship of freedom of speech is a load of horseshit.
But we'll see- If Eric wants to allow his site to be full of Cunts and Whores thrown at women... well that says a lot about him and this site, doesn't it?
Grow the fuck up already.
As far as the "formulate a plot" bullshit...
I said people should just ignore him as I now do. Interestingly enough... people are doing just that... so it's no "plot".
You on the other hand should be flat out banned. Period.
As I said, grow the fuck up RJ.
BTW... if you are saying all your bullshit about leftists... What does you calling women "cunts and whores" or being overly obesses about how many people women sleep with and the size of their partners penises say about the right? I think you need to go make nicey-nicey with the taliban since you really do seem to have a lot in common with them.
I have no idea what any of you are talking about with your nerdy Yahoo business or your "plots." I'm honored, really, but it's not my fault you're such bitter people and that some of you have nothing interesting to say. I'm a little surprised that MacDiva would consider me an enemy since I'm the only cogent liberal on here, but I wouldn't put such irrationality past any of you. I'd read it for myself, but I don't know the web address for your Yahoo thing since I can barely find this site.
Tek: I know it hurts your feelings that I won't write for your website or be a part of your empty life, but give it a break. I don't care what you think. Tell it to your shrink and go get some more ugly tattoos to deal with your crippling emotional pain and cover up the trauma that was your childhood. Or post some more ridiculously simplistic political blogs about Bush, ok? There just aren't enough of those on the web.
Look, I think this discussion has degenerated and become too personal. I think it's become a matter of diminishing returns to engage in any of these discussions (even the pop culture ones). Other than Sam Vaknin, who doesn't engage in most of these discussions and finds 90% of his thoughtful posts unread or uncommented upon, I find very little original thought or commentary taking place. If you do have a thought about something, you get accused of being an Ivory Tower grad student elitist or being full of BS just because you don't like crappy music or dare to refer to a book on a serious topic like race relations.
I honestly feel like most of the regular commenters/posters (all 10 of you) write just for the sake of writing and not to engage in any actual dialogue or debate. For some reason, a true engagement of issues scares you. Hence the endless one-upsmanship.
You can have your little right-wing Dungeons and Dragons white male community with your token wacked out computer nerd minority chicks and white soccer moms if you want. Make all the shallow comments you want, feel free to be completely wrong about politics or culture, have fun making internet "friends" and "enemies." I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore about silly, petty stuff nor am I going to respond to personal attacks.
Grow up. Stop being childish. No one cares about your insecurities.
I believe you are confusing me with Ms. Tek, Bob. I haven't said anything about you that hasn't appeared here. However, the words you refer to came from RJ Elliott, so I would need proof to accept them about Ms. Tek. She is a reasonable person most of the time. As is bhw.
What you are seeing is references to things that occurred before you arrived. They included an overlong visit from a 'scientific' racist who says people of African descent are not really human and posted a picture depicting Janet Jackson as a gorilla on his blog. Al Barger invited David Yeagley over to Blogcritics.
I guess the most simple way to explain this background is to say that BC was a gathering place for ultra Right Wing white men. Reactionaries, really. People who believe there are Commies under the bed and we need to return to the gold standard. When diversity turned up and was rather outspoken, quite a few of them became irate. Most of those who dominated comments pretended to be bloggers, but really weren't. (By which I mean they might start a blog and throw up a purloined news story on it from time to time.) The diverse and 'Left' voices are mainly people who consistently blog. More grounds for resentment. There is also an age difference. Several of the most hysterical Right Wingers threatened by women and uppity darkies are elderly white men.
It is a long story. If you want to know more, email me.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - bhw
There's *nothing* I love more than a good, fiesty Klan rally. Especially at my house.
77 - boomcrashbaby
I guess my views have changed as I have gotten older. Truthfully, if I were a student in his school, I would have looked at the posters and said 'what's the big deal?'
Perhaps because I have gotten older, I am able to now see a bigger picture that I didn't see before? I don't know.
I am all for Free Speech. It is the primary concept that has made our country the greatest on earth. I guess though, getting older, made me realize that it doesn't mean we need to throw accountability out the window.
A kid turns in a term paper filled with exaggerations and slander, and it wil get rightly graded accordlingly. There is accountability there (at least for now, thank goodness).
I don't know, it's not the kid's viewpoint I have a problem with, it's his presentation. Foxnews has made it acceptable now to just throw any fallacy or opinion out as fact and it's readily accepted. (but of course, be sure and tune into Scaroborough Country to see a complete dissertation, along with graphs and pie charts, about the lies and misrepresentations in Farenheit 9/11 and hear all about how wrong it is to do that).
bhw, I agree with you about the fact that censorship is wrong. And I agree that the way the school handled it was wrong. But I have to disagree with your premise that Free Speech should run unchecked as long as it does not result in direct harm against anybody else. There is a reason why you will never see, driving down the road, a billboard covered with graphic photos of aborted fetus parts.
Should I ever be allowed to be married, I know that there will be some free speech advocates who will fight for the right of some individuals to tarnish my wedding day by standing outside the church and shouting in all our faces as we walk inside about how sodomites burn in hell. I suppose that is just going to be part of the price some of us have to pay for all of us to have freedom of speech unfettered.
But what I know now, that I didn't know when I was younger, was that even if the hate speech isn't specific about you, it still can kill. This is why the suicide rate for gay youth is 5 times the national average. When you grow up and realize you are a 'sodomite' and everybody constantly tells you that sodomites are the cause of the decay of society, then it doesn't matter if they use your name or not, the effect is still there.
Having said that, the kid should be able to go around promoting the fallacy that the left is anti-children, and it is the right that puts human life above the dollar. And more people will gravitate to the right because nobody bothers to fact check anymore, or hold people accountable for their free speech and this country will continue to go to hell in a handbasket until one day, it's a complete mess and everybody looks around and says 'wha happened?'
Free speech should not mean no accountability.
78 - boomcrashbaby
thankfully though, I can now throw out paragraphs like the hell-in-a-handbasket one and not have to substantiate them with logic or reason. (although one only has to look at the ratings of foxnews to see that I actually have logic or reason in my comments).
79 - bhw
I hear you, Boom, and I agree with your discussion of accountability and the level of discourse we're becoming used to. And I also know that gays [and others] have suffered from the speech of people who hate them. I get it, totally.
One of the problems was that there wasn't enough noise made by people who disagreed with the homophobic "agenda." I would say the same is true of your concern about this kid's exaggerations becoming accepted as truth: somebody needs to tell the other side of the story and tell it just as loudly [with perhaps less exaggeration]. Stopping his message isn't the answer. Providing the counter-message is.
I believe that words have power. So that's why I believe all perspectives should be heard. Lay all the truly ugly ideas out on the table so they can be addressed. Don't bury them underground, but DO address them.
That's all I'm saying. Because it's pretty disappointing that a student tore down his posters rather than put up her own.
80 - Mac Diva
And, bhw just happens to be safe from the haters. She can sit back and lecture me or the woman being harrassed by baby Kluxers about the importance of free speech while never having to pay the price herself. She can kid herself that no one was harmed by the activities of Bryan Henderson and coo about how cute those kids look in their Klan outfits. (It is just a lighthearted prank, after all.) That is the effect of white privilege.
81 - RJ Elliott
"Eric, Phillip, anyone with moderating ability: Something must be done about RJ Elliott. #63 is beyond the pale, wholly offensive, and completely against your stated rules."
Apparently, Eric and Phil no longer enforce their rules. Mac Diva has gone back to her old ways of lying about people, calling them racists, murderers, homos, etc.
If Mac Diva is not expected to follow the rules, then I guess they were repealed when I wasn't paying attention. So therefore I was violating nothing.
If comment #63 gets deleted, half of MD's comments better be erased as well.
82 - RJ Elliott
"Nor do I agree with bhw that this thread is being conducted civilly by everyone. It features a white man referring to a woman of color as a [edited]"
That's your twisted take on it.
The way I see it, skin color is irrelevant to this. What happened is that one poster (myself), sick and tired of being called a murderous racist (and seeing others called the same sorts of things) by another poster (that would be you), decided to get personal as well. And now you're whining about it, as if you haven't been guilty of the same "uncivil" behavior here dozens of times.
Naturally, Mac would like to turn this into a racial thing, and claim "victim" status. How very typical.
83 - Mac Diva
But for the ingrate known as RJ Elliott being a Right Wing white man harassing women of color he would have been banned from this site by now. He called Ms. Tek a '[edited]' weeks ago. Now, he has called me a '[edited].' Similar language was used toward Sandra Smallson, before she stopped commenting. If RJ Elliott were to use the same language toward bhw or Dawn Olsen, the response would be quite different. The situation speaks for itself.
84 - RJ Elliott
[This entire comment was too long to bother editing, so I zapped it. -Admin]
85 - Ms. Tek
Ah... now I have an idea who probably said all that bullshit to paypal about me... Something about me having "pornographic photos" and selling my "services".
RJ... NO that was not a play on my Website Name. I have NEVER EVER called myself "tekwh0re" on Blogcritics you little lying piece of shit (Well Eric, Phillip... since RJ can call people "cunts and whores" all the time on here any not get banned then I can call him a MOTHERFUCKER- except I'm sure even his mother wishes she swallowed that night. Eric, Phillip, for once, I challenge you to speak up on THAT matter as that I have been here longer than RJ and YOU KNOW the name (one) I used before and why I changed it. So who is lying NOW RJ? Moreover, whatever I decide to call my website is my business and not YOURS.
Finally, you lying sack of shit, you called me a whore not "months" ago but two months ago:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/23/005129.php
Which is interesting because I said something to Phillip about that and he said he would remove it but he didn't.
You know, when I debate people, I don't make a habit of calling names nor to I play dirty until someone starts with me "off the cuff". I was taught how to debate my point in school without getting personal or call names. As I have said a million times before... I DO NOT TAKE SHIT, however. If you want to "tussle" with me, I don't mind going low too.
But see Eric, you are always pandering to you psychotic, right winger crowd. They can call names left and right and all you do is try to "smooth things over".
I suppose bad publicity is good publicity. So long as there is attention then its okay, right? The terms "cunt" and "whore" are okay in a debate with women, huh?
Which goes back to my original point and why I took on the name "tekwh0re" a long time ago.
When you stand up against a man, first you are a "bitch", if that doesn't rattle your cages, then you become a "slut" and a "whore". If that doesn't work, "lesbo" and "dyke" are next... finally when they really can't prove their point or shake you in any way possible, you become a "cunt".
All it shows is a lack of intelligence and skills on the party that feels the need to toss names out first. They don't know what to say and they are so frustrated by the limitations of their own mind, they start to just spew crap (much like most of RJ's postings).
But hey, double standards... whatever you can get for content on here, right Eric? Doesn't matter if it is crap, plagiarized, or otherwise. People want to constantly call other people names? We'll just make "nicey-nicey" speak out of both sides of our mouths and wait for things to "blow over". We'll just make some lame ass yahoo group to "complain" about other blogcritcs as nothing still is done.
And what is even the most telling of all, Eric... YOU then after some things blow over support and then praise the very people who have caused the problems. You say you are fair but to be honest not once have I seen you praise Mac Diva for something but I have seen you praise Al Barger and EJ Eliott- most recently saying his posts are getting better.
What a load of CRAP.
But hey... I'm not angry with RJ Elliot- I know the type of kid he is... He can't help what he is. However I can blame YOU Eric. You can decide who stays and who goes. You can decide what the quality level is that you want.
Someone said in the blogcritics group that they like it when people start crap in comments because it adds a lot of comments and brings to the discussion.
Yeah, I can see how a lot of "cunts" and "whores" flying back in forth really adds value to this site.
And yes, I am calling both Eric and Phillip out in public on this one because you are both wrong and unfair beyond the point of doubt here. As IF this is the first time that RJ Idiot has resorted to this kind of behavior because of his very limited mental capacity.
What a load of bullshit.
86 - boomcrashbaby
The terms "c*nt" and "wh*re" are okay in a debate with women, huh?
Ms. Tek, I agree with your post. I had mentioned several times on this thread, about having to do something like get married with individuals shouting 'you fags burn in hell' in my face as I walked up the church steps. The response I got (still on this thread for review), was that ANY kind of censorship is wrong and the correct answer is to counter it with speech just as loudly.
Which means when I do get married, I'll need to make sure everyone has a megaphone.
So it seems the correct thing to do, when someone calls you the 'c' word, is to shout back just as loudly, 'Dick!'. Then nobody's rights were infringed upon, (which apparently trumps your right to not be verbally assaulted) and all the people across the world, who surf the internet can stumble across this thread and see 'c*nt' and 'dick' all over the place and know what proud and free speakers Americans are!
87 - bhw
She can sit back and lecture me or the woman being harrassed by baby Kluxers about the importance of free speech while never having to pay the price herself.
First, it's not a lecture. It's a comment thread, a discussion. Second, just because I'm not a racial minority doesn't mean someone else's "speech" hasn't affected me negatively.
She can kid herself that no one was harmed by the activities of Bryan Henderson and coo about how cute those kids look in their Klan outfits.
Nice fabrication about the kiddie Klanners. Once again, QUOTE ME. I noticed you never bothered to quote me the last time I challenged you to. That's because you can't.
"That is the effect of white privilege."
Everyone's beliefs are shaped, in part, by their experiences. In my experience, it DOES NOT HELP to silence political speech you don't like, no matter how ugly it gets.
I said twice in this thread that a hostile environment should not be allowed to be created in public school. And I don't think one was created by this incident.
I'm sorry you fall back on racial divisions when people on the left stand up for the rights of people you dislike. Go ahead and paint me as a Klan sympathizer if you want. It speaks more about you than it does about me.
88 - bhw
Freedom of speech has a price, Boom. Would I like to see protesters at your wedding? No. Would I like to see your wedding turned into a shouting match? No.
But the alternative is worse. How can you be sure it won't be your speech that is censored next?
89 - bhw
Boom, will you be chiming in about Mac Diva's accountability for her speech about me, since it's so important for people to talk about FACTS and not exaggerate?
Who's the fact-checker on this thread?
90 - Bob A. Booey
Jesus. I hadn't read this topic because I didn't find it interesting, but then I see this. You people get too worked up and I've been out too late to process all your petty feuds.
Despite my ironic take on censorship that no one responded to recently, here's the deal with your silly problems:
RJ's comment #63 was fine until he said the four-letter word. He's commented upon how he's had problems with women in the past due to that word :) I think the reasonable solution is to go back and just delete those four inflammatory letters from his post if you folks really insist -- I'd imagine RJ wouldn't care all that much. I don't even think that's necessary, though.
I disagree with RJ's simian political views 100% of the time and I've called him stupid more than anyone else has in my short time commenting on this site, but I respect his ability to say what he wants. If he or anyone else truly deserved to be censored, I would say so, but I think we need a fairly high threshold for policing thought and speech.
I'm farther left and a better leftie than any of the rest of the left-wingers on the site -- and I think I'm the only one of the few liberals who's not a sista (but I do notice that we're all people of color) -- but I think there's a real irony in calling for censorship in a topic about free speech. For what it's worth, the school might have a legal right to determine that politically motivated posters aren't approved for posting, but the kid shouldn't be suspended for being an ass. Chomsky would probably object (as I do) to the idea that a student should be faced with bureaucratic punishment for poorly chosen satire and misguided political sloganeering.
I've had MacDiva incorrectly jump over a comment of mine about racism once before and I corrected her, but I think she has a right to her occasionally difficult speech just as RJ has a right to present simpleton, contrarian positions as well. MacDiva and I seem to agree a lot on politics lately, but I think calling for the limitation of speech is a dangerous precedent. Otherwise, people couldn't converse about topics where they CAN communicate (even if it's nearly impossible on others). Anyone whose identity or beliefs are often in the minority (as mine are) should caution against invoking censorship. Using a four-letter word that's rougly equivalent to MFer is unpleasant but not injurious nor a libelous attack on the specifics of someone's life. It's a generic, dismissive swear word. Deal.
A great example of how to deal with unpleasant speech is the recent topic about the C-word itself. RJ (or Olsen or someone) brought up the word and we quickly decided that anyone who's stupid enough to use the word deserves to hear the scorn of the woman they use it toward. RJ, you're a douche for using it again after that discussion. But if we start censoring certain words, that would mean we couldn't have a frank discussion like that one, a meta-discussion about the use of that word in society and its impact.
I am as mystified as anyone about the Al Barger support and I do sense there's a strong libertarian/right bent to the site that I can't explain. However, I don't think any of those fools should be censored. You have a right to be wrong and I have a right to challenge you into silence. Not that I'm a model of decorum, but I'd much RATHER be able to read and respond to ridiculous or racist claims. Look at the Cosby thread for example. People like Jim Carruthers, Al Barger, and a few other reactionary white folks I'm forgetting made indefensible claims about race and were argued into silence. The best way to shut up a sexist, homophobe or a racist is to present them with the truth. As a minority myself, I'd much rather have bigotry out in the open than the quite politeness of silent distance and shallow tolerance.
But then I don't lose many arguments. You were a debater too, Scary Spice?
See? We can kid each other without it necessarily being personally hateful.
None of us who regularly comment, even the grandfather types, are particularly mature but it's particulary immature to ask "administrators" to use authority to enforce maturity (whatever that means). Sometimes it's fun to be immature about serious matters and I can't think of anyone of you in this dispute who isn't occasionally "off the cuff." Most of the "serious" political debate on the site is relatively shallow and sparse to begin with, so "enforcing" certain types of speech would take away most of what the site currently is. I, for one, would find it very boring to read and I would imagine there would be fewer regular commenters than there already are if we were all walking on eggshells and holding back.
When people call me a "whore," I admit it because they're right. When people say I'm pretentious and arrogant, I admit it. When people are right about something stupid I said, I admit it. Stop being offended so easily, folks. RJ seems to have a fairly decent sense of humor about himself. If he calls you a cunt, just remind him that he reads "get a bigger penis" websites.
I mean, it's RJ. How hard is it to set him straight?
Porn pictures? Where?
I'd rather do the alien.
That is all.
91 - Bob A. Booey
Also, if a discussion gets too heated, just tell the person honestly that you were offended by their comments and tone in addressing you.
I don't think anyone's such a tool that they'd persist in attacking if you asked them to stop.
OK? I'm teaching you all how to live human lives, slowly but surely.
That is all.
92 - boomcrashbaby
Everyone's beliefs are shaped, in part, by their experiences. In my experience, it DOES NOT HELP to silence political speech you don't like, no matter how ugly it gets.
okay, you've put the word 'political' in there, so I agree with this sentence, although I think making a statement that liberals value the dollar above human life does not qualify as a political sentence.
What about religious speech though? Which is more important, the right of a religious person to stand on a street corner and exercise freedom of speech, or the right of an individual who is condemned by said religion to exercise his right to be free FROM religious persecution?
And for the record, I agree with you, that you standing up for the right of KKK kids to have free speech, does not mean you are a KKK sympathizer. However, I think kids purposely wearing white robes, which have a history of murder, lynching, torture and fear, around individuals who for generations were victims by white robe wearers, does NOT fall under 'free speech'. Now free speech includes the wardrobe we wear? Sorry bhw, I respect and like you immensely hon, we agree probably on most everything else, but such an action is specifically designed to intimidate and cause fear and terror. To me, that falls more under 'terrorism' than it does 'free speech'.
If wardrobe falls under free speech, then what about no wardrobe? Why can't those of us who choose so, walk around naked without penalty?
Free speech means different things to different people. If we all had a right to just put up posters of our thoughts, then this world would have a hell of a lot of paper trash. I don't agree that taking the guys posters down (which were done in the heat of the moment and irrationally), is violating his freedom of speech. He can write an editorial in the paper, he can stand out on the school grounds and speak his mind to other students, etc.
To me, the unlimited use of being able to 'post' your posters, or the clothes you wear, etc. do not fall under the ever-growing umbrella of 'free speech'.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that and once again, I don't think you are a KKK sympathizer. I know that you standing up for the right of someone to condemn me, doesn't mean you condemn me personally.
93 - Bob A. Booey
If we're going to start censoring people, I nominate myself. I find myself highly offensive lately and DEMAND immediate correction for our community. We MUST establish values for what we believe and whom we exclude. None of you spoke up when you had your chance to establish the new glorious order of censorship and now look what's happened. Just look! You can only blame yourselves for the chaos of unruly speech -- I offered you an iron fist, whips, and chains and you turned your collective backs on me. Jack Ryan, interestingly, gave me his number.
Phillip -- please censor any comments I have made about politics, animals, or midgets lately, including that last offensive sentence above. I think it's necessary for our community and I offer myself as a sacrifical example to re-establish order among the hoi polloi.
IMMEDIATELY, forthwith, expediently with all due haste, let us embrace the spirit of the times and be the vanguard of enforcing appropriate, high-quality speech. It is up to the intellectuals to take a stand now for pretty talkin.
For the third time, that is all. And I trust Phillip to make the phrase "that is all" mean something for us.
94 - boomcrashbaby
let us embrace the spirit of the times and be the vanguard of enforcing appropriate, high-quality speech. It is up to the intellectuals to take a stand now for pretty talkin.
This sarcasm misses the point. As for 'pretty talkin', refer back to my thought of a billboard of graphic photos of bloody fetus's. It's not allowed in society, but it isn't censoring the pro-lifers. They have plenty of other ways to speak out.
So all students can put up posters wherever they want and it's automatically protected by free speech? What about a student who wants to rent one of those signs that you can pull by a truck, and who parks it right in the school parking lot? Is that free speech too?
Was the kid denied ANY other avenue to express his point? THAT is censorship.
Kids can wear KKK clothes to intimidate and we must put up with it even if it's not 'pretty' because it's now speech? Why can't I walk around buck ass naked as self-expression and not be penalized?
Censorship means silencing a person's voice. It doesn't mean denying them one avenue.
Telling a person to not shout in my face that I will burn in hell, but allowing him to espouse that view on his own website, newspaper or pulpit is NOT censorship.
95 - bhw
Boom, thanks for the response.
What about religious speech though? Which is more important, the right of a religious person to stand on a street corner and exercise freedom of speech, or the right of an individual who is condemned by said religion to exercise his right to be free FROM religious persecution?
Well, you're not gonna like this, but ....There has to be a balance, because the first amendment provides for both, freedom of religion for the individual and freedom from government-endorsed religion. So, the religious person on the street has the right to promote his religion.
Unfortunately, we're free only from government sponsored religious persecution, not the persecution [verbally speaking] of, say, the Catholic Church. They're free to [remain hypocrites] teach their "abomination" crap. Now, if the public schools started their day with a Bible reading, I'm with you 100% because that's government sponsored religion.
And for the record, I agree with you, that you standing up for the right of KKK kids to have free speech,
Here's where your earlier points about factless exaggerations come into play. I never said any such thing. I never addressed the rights of those kids at all. MD quoted the story and then put words into my mouth. She has created the impression that I said someting I didn't. So your points about the kid's posters are well taken.
However, she MD has the right to do that. And I have the right to point out her lies.
Now free speech includes the wardrobe we wear?
Actually, I think it does. Seen anyone wearing an offensive t-shirt lately? That said, we do have "decency" laws, as you noted, that prevent us from walking around naked. As for the kids in the white robes, they have the right to wear them on the street, at home, etc. When they get on the school bus, the bus driver and students have a right to protest that they're creating a environment where they feel physically threatened. If that's the case, then the robes go [and hopefully the kids get some intervention]. I draw the line at physical intimidation at school, which I said before.
Free speech means different things to different people.
And that's the problem, really. Today it's kids with posters at school that attack the Left. Tomorrow it's who? We all have different standards for what we like and don't like. Who gets to choose what gets said and what doesn't [or how it gets said]? The people with the most power? That scares me.
I know that you standing up for the right of someone to condemn me, doesn't mean you condemn me personally.
Thank you. I appreciate that you can see the difference. I think I'm well on the record for what my own beliefs are, how I vote, etc.
So I do indeed agree to disagree with you on this topic. I seem to keep getting more adamant about free speech as I get older [I think we're about the same age]. I used to think it was better to censor certain things, and now I don't.
I think the Bush administration has something to do with that. I can't get Ari Fleisher's "Now is the time for Americans to watch what they say" out of my head.
96 - boomcrashbaby
It's an odd world we live in, where we can't show the flesh we are born in, because it is 'indecent', yet as long as we use man-made items like billboards, shirts or posters, practically no rules whatsoever apply.
Physical intimidation is off limits but not verbal harassment? So what are women who live in verbally abusive relationships griping about? Don't their husbands have freedom of speech? Having attempted suicide when I was younger, I know that living under verbal abuse in the house is the equivalent as living under constant verbal abuse within society.
I worry about the Patriot Act, and the loss of our freedom of speech too. ESPECIALLY under the morons running the country. I just believe in our quest to make sure that doesn't happen, we don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
97 - RJ Elliott
"Ah... now I have an idea who probably said all that bullshit to paypal
about me... Something about me having "pornographic photos" and selling my
"services"."
Why would I try to get you in trouble with PayPal, when I was one of those who donated to your site?
"RJ... NO that was not a play on my Website Name. I have NEVER EVER called myself
"tekwh0re" on Blogcritics"
Hmm. If you say so. My mistake. I must have been confused because "TekWh0re" is in your Website name. So, it wasn't a play on your BC name, but your Website name. Whatever. Mea culpa.
"whatever I decide to call my website is my business and not
YOURS."
Oh, you can call it whatever you want. And then I can comment on what you call it. Free speech, and all...
"Finally, you lying sack of shit, you called me a whore not "months" ago but
two months ago"
One month = singular
Two months = plural
How am I "lying" here?
"Which is interesting because I said something to Phillip about that and he said
he would remove it but he didn't"
Aww, poor baby. You can call people vile names and hope for the slaughter of every Jew in Israel, no problem. But when someone calls you by your Website name, you run to the administrators and demand censorship. You poor thing you...
98 - Ms. Tek
RJ, you flat out were calling me a whore. You know it. I know it.
And if I say so?
Well, you lying sack of shit, see if can find ANY articles under "tekwh0re" up on this site.
You can call people vile names and hope for the slaughter of every Jew in Israel, no problem.
Once again, you are liar. I NEVER said that I hoped for the "slaughter of every Jew in Israel". You know I didn't say that and anyone who is a regular on here knows I have never said that. Also, I don't make a habit of calling people "motherfuckers" or "assholes". etc... I don't EVER call people names first and it also takes A LOT to get me to toss them. That is called being an adult- something that you have no clue about.
And lets get something straight= Freedom of speech DOES NOT mean the FREEDOM to harass people. If you want to write a book with words whore and cunt all in them, fine. But if you think it is okay for you to call someone whores and cunts in a conversation I would LOVE to see you try that with a cop or a judge.
99 - Bob A. Booey
I don't think the "would you say this in front of a cop or judge" standard is a good one for free speech. Half the things we say in normal conversation wouldn't be appropriate in a courtroom and would get you held in contempt. I'd imagine the same is true in talking to a police officer. Website comments shouldn't be written as if people are corresponding with authorities because, quite frankly, none of you are cops or judges. And if you are, find something better to do with your time because you shouldn't say half the things you say yourselves.
Tek: I never called you a name, by the way. You started that whole business on your own. What was your reason in my case? Other than my being wonderful and adorable, of course.
BoomCrash: I'll tell you a little story. I knew this kid in high school who was on a team with me and we had a lot of the same friends, hung out together. He was kind of a dumb guy, but I didn't know how dumb until someone told me that he had a secret mock celebration of Hitler's birthday and did some mock salute thing as a joke. What made this even more ridiculous was that this kid was 100% Polish -- you'd think he'd know some history and what Hitler did to his people. Not to mention that there were a lot of Jewish kids in our class -- I think a good number of people vaguely knew about his mock Hitler thing but he was so stupid that no one took him seriously. When I heard about it, I told him how stupid it was for a Polish kid to make Hitler jokes and I didn't hear much about that kind of crap after that. For some reason there will always be immature kids who think arch-conservative posturing is cool. They think it's cool to use slurs because it's not PC -- most of the time, I don't think it's even actual hate. I don't think that the answer is to ban their ability to speak -- unless it clearly crosses the line -- but rather to offer counter-speech that exposes the folly of prejudiced speech and to educate those who utter stupid things. Especially with young people, the more you seem afraid of a bad idea, the more attractive it becomes to them, kind of a forbidden fruit syndrome like smoking. The best way to deal with hurtful words is to demystify them and expose their uselessness to the context in which they were uttered.
That is all.
100 - boomcrashbaby
Bob, nobody in your story, including yourself told him to stop, so I don't see the analogy.
I do see a double standard though.
KKK clothes, and obscene t-shirts fall under 'freedom of speech'. But those aren't speech, those are expressions. So SOME expressions are protected. (KKK white robes don't really have text on them, they are symbolic expressions, that people here agree are an 'expression of free speech'.)
Yet if I wanted to use my nakedness as a symbolic expression, the same as a white robe which is now protected by the free speech amendment, it violates decency laws.
So free speech is already selectively applied.
And that is why I get the response of 'just deal with it' when hate speech is shoved at me.
How come nobody is wondering if ALL avenues were shut down for him? What if it was just posters that were the problem? Didn't the principal say he could hand out leaflets? This isn't censorship going on. This is people who are not on the receiving end of a hateful topic, saying yet again 'deal with it'. It's all selective. And here this kid wasn't censored and everybody's all panicking his rights were violated.
I'm not going to be able to show you all the consequences of this, on this thread, so I guess I'll just leave it at that and say that is all for me.
101 - RJ Elliott
Tek on Jews: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/18/235745.php
"if a huge tidal wave came and pushed the current state of Israel into the sea, it would be the best thing in the world."
"all the Israelis can go to hell too. Just blow them all the fuck up and be done with it. That whole area has caused more world instability in the last 80 years than any other. BLOW ALL OF THEM UP. So fucking sick of the fucking holocaust shit. Time to get over it."
"Some of us are tired of it [hearing about the Holocaust]. YOU SUCK IT UP. DEAL. GROW THE FUCK UP"
102 - Mac Diva
Jeez! Now I'm doing for free what I get paid for.
First, the impression that bhw is promoting -- that free speech is absolute -- is false. There are many legal restrictions on speech that do not violate the First Amendment. Steve (Boom) already referred to time, place and manner restrictions. Others include restrictions relating to public property and those addressing incitement, which makes speech action.
Second. Public school students have fewer free speech rights than just about anyone. The claim that posters can be posted at a student's whim, in defiance of teachers and officials is ludicrous. Even without getting into free speech, the teachers and other staff get to decide what can be on the walls of the school. (Yes, one might argue content discrimination, but only after establishing there is permission for political content at all.) I suspect Bryan Henderson lied often and largely in his narrative. For example, just how likely is it that another student would know of and go to the same web site he did to print out political protest posters to be hung on the wall at school? The little rascal has blinded some adults with bullsh!t, but not me.
Third. Allowing disruptive behavior results in escalation of the behavior. As Boom and I have both said, 'Heimler' Henderson could have spoken his objections. Instead, he purports to have put up posters, claimed the time of administrators to whine and incited protests in the parking lot of the school.
In class, I would have possibly created a hypothetical showing where the disruption might go. Instead, a breaking news story did it for me -- the Ku Klux Klan kids. Henderson is about a step from the KKK kids and two steps from causing actual violence. This is where claims of an absolute right to free speech lead. bhw has chosen to characterize my point about her support for Henderson implying support for the KKK kids a 'lie.' However, she has not expressed any disapproval of the KKK kids.
My own area of interest in regard to free speech is quasi-public places. I have some old blog entries I will put up if I can find them. (Blogger has a strong appetite for its own archives.)
I have also written fairly often about the neo-Confederate movement and its efforts to cause disruption of public schools. That is usually done by encouraging groups of white students to wear tee-shirts with the Confederate flag and, often, a picture of black people picking cotton, on them, to school. Then, Kirk Lyons, the Aryan Nations and neo-Confederate leader, will claim the shirts aren't disruptive and threaten to sue if the children are disciplined. Some school districts, poorly informed about their rights under the law, cave. Others send him packing. He has never won a lawsuit, despite filing scores.
I must say I find bhw's attitude selfish in addition to being inaccurate legally. I am not gay. But, for me to be dismissive of the harm that might occur to homosexuals being harassed by the Bryan Hendersons of the world would be short-sighted and self-centered. As I said earlier, if Matt Hale's follower had seen the bhw walking down the street he would have waved and said 'Hi.' Me? Shot dead. Bob, too, if he is identifiably not white. Maybe Boom, if he 'looks' gay. Benjamin Smith began his jihad with pamphlets and posters, just like Bryan Henderson. In summary: I am not willing sacrifice our right not to be harassed, assaulted or even killed to bhw's support for absolute free speech.
Bob, did you read Bryan Henderson's screed, cited in the link? That is where the pay dirt is.
103 - Ms. Tek
Yes, that clearly hows how "I hope for the slaughter of every Jew in Israel"
You are such a moronic tool, its amazing.
There is no statement there about me wishing or hoping "slaughter". There is no statement about me wishing Jews specifically. I said ISRAELIS- go look up the population of Israel. Jews, Europeans, Americans, Arabs. Furthermore, people who read that thread also knew when I said BLOW THEM ALL UP that means the Palestinians, the Israelis, and every other person over there who cannot stop shooting at each other and causing problems for the rest of the world. Unlike you, RJ, I don't discriminate by race nor religion. If you are pain in the ass, you are a pain in the ass. Period.
Being sick of the Holocaust crap has NOTHING to do with wanting to go and "slaughter Jews". I am also sick of the slavery shit. Does this mean that I want to go and slaughter blacks?
But thanks for quoting me directly. It only shows how you lie and misrepresent. I think its clear now why you got such a bad grade on you exam paper. If that is how you cite things to prove your point, my suggestion would be re-do high school and perhaps thow in a logic class in there if your brain can handle it.
Then again, if you brain is the size of your dick, I am afraid there is no hope for you. Poor child. Perhaps that explains a lot.
104 - Mac Diva
I hope Steve (Boom) did not actually leave the thread. Much of what he has said is accurate.
105 - Mac Diva
I believe I recall the entry Ms. Tek is referring to. It was about getting fed up with the behavior of people to the point of misanthropy or wishing they would go away. It was not an attack on Jews any more so than any other group in the Middle East.
106 - RJ Elliott
"There is no statement there about me wishing or hoping "slaughter"."
Milions dead wouldn't be a "slaughter"?
"There is no statement about me wishing Jews specifically."
Interesting that, of the 200 or so countries in the world, the ONE with a majority-Jewish population is the one you hope is destroyed. (And in the same thread that you attack Jews for "whining" about the Holocaust...)
"I said ISRAELIS- go look up the population of Israel."
It's mostly Jewish people. The only majority-Jewish country on the planet.
"Jews, Europeans, Americans, Arabs."
So, what you are saying is that you would like to see genocide against not just Jewish Israelis, but NON-Jewish Israelis as well? Some defense...
"I think its clear now why you got such a bad grade on you exam paper."
I don't know of any "exam paper" I've gotten a "bad" grade on. I DO know of a "research paper" that I got a "mediocre" grade on, most likely because the pro-communist professor disagreed with my political point-of-view. No such problems in any of my other classes, though.
"If that is how you cite things to prove your point, my suggestion would be re-do high school and perhaps thow in a logic class in there if your brain can handle it."
Very poor syntax here, as well as two typos. Ironic...
107 - bhw
First, the impression that bhw is promoting -- that free speech is absolute -- is false.
Never said that. I talked about what I think the kid's rights are in his school and I acknowledged we have some limits on free speech [reading the Bible over a loudspeaker in public school, for example].
I did not give the impression that free speech is absolute. I talked about what I thought should have been allowed in this case. That said, I think free speech should be almost absolute. That's my opinion.
I suspect Bryan Henderson lied often and largely in his narrative. For example, just how likely is it that another student would know of and go to the same web site he did to print out political protest posters to be hung on the wall at school?
It's very likely since they're all members of the same chapter of the organization.
Here's what the kid said:
At the end of the day, my fellow PW [Protest Warrior] chapter members and I felt it was time to fight back and strike at the public education indoctrination machine that seemed to be running out of control. Our school desperately needed some ideological balance, so we decided that the next day we would up the ante and place 500 signs in the halls of the school.
The story about him that RJ linked to is posted on the Protest Warrior web site. You know, the organization to which he and his friends belong. So I think it's highly likely that they all know about the website of their parent organization.
Henderson is about a step from the KKK kids and two steps from causing actual violence.
Again, where's the crystal ball?
This is where claims of an absolute right to free speech lead. bhw has chosen to characterize my point about her support for Henderson implying support for the KKK kids a 'lie.'
You said I "cooed" over how cute they look in their robes and that I'd invite them over to dinner [a.k.a, that I support the content of their message]. That's a lie. But that's the game you play: if I don't agree with you on an issue that involves race, then I'm a KKK sympathizer.
I'm a free speech advocate, and that goes for everybody.
However, she has not expressed any disapproval of the KKK kids.
I don't need to bow to your demands to show my anti-kkk card. But here's how it goes, which is what I said in my last comment: the kids have the right to wear the robes in public. You don't have to like it; you just have to acknowledge it. They don't have the right to wear them on the school bus if their intent is to threaten the bus driver or students [this intent has yet to be determined, according to the article you linked to].
I understand the powerful symbolism of the robes, but I don't think they should be against the law.
Does that make me a KKK sympathizer? Probably only in your mind.
108 - RJ Elliott
BHW:
Don't feel bad. MD attacks everybody with racial slurs when they don't agree with her fringe opinions 100% of the time.
Shark, for example, is a hard-core liberal. But he's on her shit-list too, for not agreeing 100% with every word she types.
Mac seems to turn every thread she participates in, regardless of the original topic, into a cesspool of divisive racial politics. I'd be surprised if, given a full accounting, more than half of her comments didn't accuse someone of racism, discrimination, bigotry, or the like.
Anyway. You are to be respected, bhw, for stating your opinion, even if it counters that of the party line. Good job. We need more independent thinkers! :-]
109 - bhw
Thanks, RJ.
Now go wash your mouth out with soap!
Back to the topic. I just saw a headline today about gay pride parades around the world.
How long ago would these expressions have been stifled?
Oh, wait, it last month:
A gay pride parade planned earlier this month in Warsaw, Poland, was banned by Mayor Lech Kaczynski, who said he feared clashes with opponents planning their own demonstration.
So here we have an example of people in authority using the "we're just trying to keep everyone safe" tactic to squelch speech. I'll let someone else comment:
"The ban on demonstrating for lesbians and gays is an infringement on basic rights," said Volker Beck, a lawmaker in Germany's Greens party. "That is in no way acceptable."
I couldn't agree more.
110 - RJ Elliott
My mouth is pure. Though, perhaps my fingers are a bit stained... ;-]
111 - RJ Elliott
I have no problem with a pro-gay demonstration. Or a pro-polygamy demonstration. Or a pro-marriage-is-for-one-man-and-one-woman-only demonstration.
Or a pro-Ku-Klux-Klan demonstration. Or a pro-reparations-for-slavery demonstration. Or a pro-Black-Panthers-and-whites-are-devils demonstration.
I have no problem with any of these demonstrations. Because I support the First Amendment.
Others do not share this opinion. And THAT is the struggle we face (as I pointed out in this thread's original post).
I find it HIGHLY ironic that this thread, which began with a post on the fragility of free speech, has incited (from some of the usual suspects) calls for censorship, both on BlogCritics as well as the in larger American culture.
I believe the ACLU now owes me an honorary award, or something, for this bit of allegory...
112 - boomcrashbaby
bhw, your point is taken. I did say that he shouldn't have been censored, but since he was given other outlets, I still don't think he was.
"The ban on demonstrating for lesbians and gays is an infringement on basic rights,"
It is. Right(s) as in plural. One of the key differences in the two is that he just went around slapping disruptive posters everywhere. In the other instance, we get a permit with the city, arrange with the police for security, work with the city to create a parade route, etc.
i.e. we exercise our right of peaceful assembly. We exercise our right of free speech and we exercise our right to petition. Most of those parades have at the end keynote speakers who discuss issues and equal rights groups or political groups will be there to sign people up, etc.
If people don't like our parades, they know beforehand and stay away. It's not the same as a teen slapping posters in the hallway.
I love free speech and I am so thankful that we live in a time progressive enough that we can do parades, and I think that teen should be able to speak his views too. But we all should live by the same rules. Do you think we should be able to decide how, when, and where 100,000 of us should meet, without making any arrangements for it, beforehand?
With free speech should come responsibility and accountability and not censorship. We do agree, bhw, just not on the fact that he was censored.
113 - bhw
Boom, sometimes I wonder who has more stamina in this discussion, me or you. Every time I think you and I have done the wrap-up, one of us comes back with something new.
Anyway, good point about multiple rights being exercised in parades/protests, as well as the prepration.
Time to crash....
114 - bhw
DEFINITELY time to crash, given all the typos in my posts tonight.
115 - Mac Diva
Well, bhw has made one thing clear: When it comes to the harm done minorities under the cover of free speech, she is in bed with a particularly gruesome Neanderthal, RJ Elliott. The situation is an example of why many people of color don't really trust most white liberals. Just when you think you can, out comes the equivalent of a knife in your back, ie., support of the most retrograde of white people.
And, no, I do not support a nasty old white man from Texas who was has the values of a member of the White Citizens Council circa 1960 or so. (They believed they were liberal because the Ku Klux Klan was more violent.) Shark's attitudes are stuck in that time regardless of what he calls himself. He was already in his 30s when the civil rights laws of 1964 and 1965 were passed. He never made it past white supremacy. He showed up at Blogcritics, learned I was a bright woman of color and began harassing me from his very first post. (After all, he knows what my place is supposed to be.) Following me from thread to thread spewing abuse. Something like 70 or 75 percent of his comments are probably attacks on me. I have absolutely no empathy for him.
To borrow Bob's phrase, 'That is all.'
116 - Bob A. Booey
"When I heard about it, I told him how stupid it was for a Polish kid to make Hitler jokes and I didn't hear much about that kind of crap after that."
That's where I meant to imply that I told my dumb jock acquaintance to stop. I think with all young people, you can't just say something's forbidden or just say stop without giving a reason or they'll be more attracted to what you prohibit. Being an extreme shock value conservative is fun and easy, just like being the future Elf King of Indiana.
I don't know which link you're talking about, MacDiva. It's lost in the gazillion comments on this topic. If you re-post it, I'll read it.
I'll have to read that link and some of the boring substantive, legalistic discussion later. There's a reason I didn't want to become a lawyer.
For what it's worth, I'm less tolerant of racial slurs and injurious words of that sort that carry a historical legacy with them than I am commonly offensive speech like RJ employed. I absolutely don't think politically controversial speech by right-wing Neanderthals (or left-wing, broken-wing) should be censored. I do support the rights of the most retrogade white people to offer their viewpoints. I can't imagine a scenario where I wouldn't, as long as it's an honest perspective and not a blatant attempt to incite hatred. We are already seeing examples of censorship of the left and privacy violations of left-wing activists and these incidents will only increase with today's cultural climate -- I think the old "slippery slope" caution might actually be true today.
Public nudity is different than speech, legally. I'm not as up on the legal challenges to peformance art, but that might be the only situation where your example would make sense.
How on Earth would one begin to have the state censor abusive speech in the home? I do empathize with that experience, but I don't think it's the government's job to monitor speech constantly.
I'm really hungry. It seems like you people had quite an exciting Saturday night :)
That is all.
117 - Bob A. Booey
Who's Shark, by the way?
118 - Bob A. Booey
BHW has a good point about critical thinking in the classroom. I highly doubt that anyone teaches a political writer as "correct" in a dogmatic way; rather, a good teacher would teach it as worthy of interest and analysis.
We also shouldn't pretend that there is such a thing as an objective curriculum. There's been so much written in the debate about the literary canon, but all pedagogy is shaded by the assumptions and prejudices of administrators, teachers, and texts. The answer isn't to shut out debate or to pander to the silliest forms of inclusion (like letting students waste time debating creationism in a biology class), but rather to teach critical thinking skills so students can seek more information on their own and make up their own minds.
That kid might be right in saying he has a poor teacher, given her reaction to those events. Rigidity and reductionism in ideas often leads to similarly sweeping, broad critiques without nuance.
I'm not really interested in the legal discussion or the kid's actual case itself, though, as you can tell.
That is all.
119 - bhw
When it comes to the harm done minorities under the cover of free speech, she is in bed with a particularly gruesome Neanderthal, RJ Elliott.
The Bill of Rights makes strange bedfellows, doesn't it?
The situation is an example of why many people of color don't really trust most white liberals. Just when you think you can, out comes the equivalent of a knife in your back, ie., support of the most retrograde of white people.
Yes, white liberals really just pretend to support things like Affirmative Action. When push comes to shove, we're only interested in banding together with other whites and maintaining the white status quo. We're white, and that's all it ever boils down to for us. White. White. White.
I support the First Amendment. If you can't see the difference between supporting a right and supporting the messages that some people use that right to spread, MD, then that's your problem.
I won't walk away from my position on this matter or any other simply because it doesn't fit the liberal talking points.
120 - bhw
We also shouldn't pretend that there is such a thing as an objective curriculum.
Excellent point. Unfortunately, I don't remember any curricula not being presented as objective until college. Before that, there was no questioning, analysis, etc. I would much rather have had cultural/historical context and biases [including how the "canon" got to be the "canon"] brought into the discussion in public school.
Maybe things are different now in public schools, but I'm not so sure.
121 - boomcrashbaby
Public nudity is different than speech, legally.
I know. It probably wasn't the best analogy. It wasn't so much a comparison to speech as it was to wearing a robe, which had been decided on this board, constituted speech. It was a stretch, but the point is in there somewhere. :-)
122 - RJ Elliott
Ah, the irony of this post continues.
Tek is now demanding in the BC Yahoo group that I be permanently banned from BlogCritics. (By the way, she is also attempting to formulate a plot to make Bob A. Booey "go away.")
All over one little word. One little word that has been arbitrarily deemed by society to be "profane" even though the exact definition of the term was quite apropos in the context of my usage of it.
The endless personal attacks and defamatory claims of others are expected to be ignored. But one little R-rated insult is apparently grounds for not mere censorship, but actual expulsion.
I think my point about some on the extreme-Left has been proven. Thanks for playing along.
123 - Ms. Tek
Thats right RJ. It is UNACCEPTABLE for you to be calling people cunts and whores in discussion. Period.
And that being censorship of freedom of speech is a load of horseshit.
But we'll see- If Eric wants to allow his site to be full of Cunts and Whores thrown at women... well that says a lot about him and this site, doesn't it?
Grow the fuck up already.
As far as the "formulate a plot" bullshit...
I said people should just ignore him as I now do. Interestingly enough... people are doing just that... so it's no "plot".
You on the other hand should be flat out banned. Period.
As I said, grow the fuck up RJ.
BTW... if you are saying all your bullshit about leftists... What does you calling women "cunts and whores" or being overly obesses about how many people women sleep with and the size of their partners penises say about the right? I think you need to go make nicey-nicey with the taliban since you really do seem to have a lot in common with them.
124 - Bob A. Booey
I have no idea what any of you are talking about with your nerdy Yahoo business or your "plots." I'm honored, really, but it's not my fault you're such bitter people and that some of you have nothing interesting to say. I'm a little surprised that MacDiva would consider me an enemy since I'm the only cogent liberal on here, but I wouldn't put such irrationality past any of you. I'd read it for myself, but I don't know the web address for your Yahoo thing since I can barely find this site.
Tek: I know it hurts your feelings that I won't write for your website or be a part of your empty life, but give it a break. I don't care what you think. Tell it to your shrink and go get some more ugly tattoos to deal with your crippling emotional pain and cover up the trauma that was your childhood. Or post some more ridiculously simplistic political blogs about Bush, ok? There just aren't enough of those on the web.
Look, I think this discussion has degenerated and become too personal. I think it's become a matter of diminishing returns to engage in any of these discussions (even the pop culture ones). Other than Sam Vaknin, who doesn't engage in most of these discussions and finds 90% of his thoughtful posts unread or uncommented upon, I find very little original thought or commentary taking place. If you do have a thought about something, you get accused of being an Ivory Tower grad student elitist or being full of BS just because you don't like crappy music or dare to refer to a book on a serious topic like race relations.
I honestly feel like most of the regular commenters/posters (all 10 of you) write just for the sake of writing and not to engage in any actual dialogue or debate. For some reason, a true engagement of issues scares you. Hence the endless one-upsmanship.
You can have your little right-wing Dungeons and Dragons white male community with your token wacked out computer nerd minority chicks and white soccer moms if you want. Make all the shallow comments you want, feel free to be completely wrong about politics or culture, have fun making internet "friends" and "enemies." I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore about silly, petty stuff nor am I going to respond to personal attacks.
Grow up. Stop being childish. No one cares about your insecurities.
That is all.
125 - Mac Diva
I believe you are confusing me with Ms. Tek, Bob. I haven't said anything about you that hasn't appeared here. However, the words you refer to came from RJ Elliott, so I would need proof to accept them about Ms. Tek. She is a reasonable person most of the time. As is bhw.
What you are seeing is references to things that occurred before you arrived. They included an overlong visit from a 'scientific' racist who says people of African descent are not really human and posted a picture depicting Janet Jackson as a gorilla on his blog. Al Barger invited David Yeagley over to Blogcritics.
I guess the most simple way to explain this background is to say that BC was a gathering place for ultra Right Wing white men. Reactionaries, really. People who believe there are Commies under the bed and we need to return to the gold standard. When diversity turned up and was rather outspoken, quite a few of them became irate. Most of those who dominated comments pretended to be bloggers, but really weren't. (By which I mean they might start a blog and throw up a purloined news story on it from time to time.) The diverse and 'Left' voices are mainly people who consistently blog. More grounds for resentment. There is also an age difference. Several of the most hysterical Right Wingers threatened by women and uppity darkies are elderly white men.
It is a long story. If you want to know more, email me.