News When does political hate speech become domestic terrorism?

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
False claims made by extreme right-wing players on the US political scene are designed to terrorize people. For example, how many false claims have been made about Obama; that he is a socialist, a communist, a terrorist, etc. He wants death panels. He want's to pull the plug on grandma. He is brainwashing our children. etc etc etc. We even find a "minister" who is praying for Obama to die and go to hell while openly admitting that he is trying to light a fire under his brainwashed congregation; one of which showed up to greet Obama with a loaded AK-47. Then we go back to the invasion of Iran and the claims that WMDs were a slam dunk and the strongly enforced suggestion that we were attacked by Saddam when there was no evidence to support that assertion.

Where does free speech end and domestic terrorism begin? We all know there is a line that cannot be crossed, and it doesn't only apply to yelling "fire" in crowded theaters. In my opinion, Palin, Limbaugh, Savage [who is banned from entry to the UK as a danger to society], Beck, and a number of others, esp from the talk radio scene, are essentially domestic terrorists.
 
Last edited:

Choronzon

False claims made by extreme right-wing players on the US political scene are designed to terrorize people. For example, how many false claims have been made about Obama; that he is a socialist, a communist, a terrorist, etc. He wants death panels. He want's to pull the plug on grandma. He is brainwashing our children. etc etc etc. We even find a "minister" who is praying for Obama to die and go to hell while openly admitting that he is trying to light a fire under his brainwashed congregation; one of which showed up to greet Obama with a loaded AK-47. Then we go back to the invasion of Iran and the claims that WMDs were a slam dunk and the strongly enforced suggestion that we were attacked by Saddam when there was no evidence to support that assertion.

Where does free speech end and domestic terrorism begin? We all know there is a line that cannot be crossed, and it doesn't only apply to yelling "fire" in crowded theaters. In my opinion, Palin, Limbaugh, Savage [who is banned from entry to the UK as a danger to society], Beck, and a number of others, esp from the talk radio scene, are essentially domestic terrorists.
Have you ever been to a country where the government can designate dissenters as "domestic terrorists"? I can only assume you haven't, unless you're the sort of pathetic human being who enjoys it when those who don't agree with him are led away by the police.

The United States is a country where even during a time of war a person can stand up and speak truth to power. That becomes entirely impossible when you allow those in power to determine what that truth is—there is good reason why libel laws don't apply to political figures in the same way it apples to private citizens.

Are you really so short-sighted that you can't understand that if you prosecute a tea-partier for "domestic terrorism" today, the next administration will simply imprison anti-war activists for the same charge? Or are you perhaps so foolish as to think that President Obama has just ushered in a new era of pseudo-liberal control of the American government that will last in perpetuity?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Argentum Vulpes

False claims made by extreme right-wing players on the US political scene are designed to terrorize people. For example, how many false claims have been made about Obama; that he is a socialist, a communist, a terrorist, etc. He wants death panels. He want's to pull the plug on grandma. He is brainwashing our children. etc etc etc. We even find a "minister" who is praying for Obama to die and go to hell while openly admitting that he is trying to light a fire under his brainwashed congregation; one of which showed up to greet Obama with a loaded AK-47. Then we go back to the invasion of Iran and the claims that WMDs were a slam dunk and the strongly enforced suggestion that we were attacked by Saddam when there was no evidence to support that assertion.

Where does free speech end and domestic terrorism begin? We all know there is a line that cannot be crossed, and it doesn't only apply to yelling "fire" in crowded theaters. In my opinion, Palin, Limbaugh, Savage [who is banned from entry to the UK as a danger to society], Beck, and a number of others, esp from the talk radio scene, are essentially domestic terrorists.
So Ivan would you like to be the pot or the kettle today. Is it ok only to call republican presidents names on the alphabet stations but when someone on the radio dose it he/she is a terrorist?

People have a ligament point that the Obama administration is sounding like a socialist government. The continued takeover of US banks (started by GWB), the takeover of GM, and now wanting to get a single pay option in health care. All of this supported by the taxpayers, sounds like socialism to me.

Also since you seem to listen to all of these conservative talk show hosts could you please tell me a direct quote where anyone of them have engaged in domestic terrorism? Also there is the case of Obama's good friend Bill Ayers the head of an actual domestic terrorism group.

As for Savage being banned from Britain it is because according the the UK home sectary office.

This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country.
Ms Smith told BBC Breakfast

So can we see on the list soon people like Bill Maher, Jessie Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, or even Howard Stern. They have all said things that could cause inter-community tension.
 

Jasongreat

Ivan, I cant believe that I am about to agree with a point in your post, well below your post. It is time for the republican party to be replaced with a real conservative party, in my HO I think the last conservative president we've had was calvin coolidge.
But as far as the rest is concerned pure hogwash.
 

Wax

82
0
If they can find out who started the false rumors then they could bring about law suits for defamation. Beck and Sean Hannity are all propaganda. They provide no real value in news other then to bash a president for ratings.
 
If they can find out who started the false rumors then they could bring about law suits for defamation.
Perhaps we can start with the people who called Bush a racist fascist nazi criminal?
 

Jasongreat

If they can find out who started the false rumors then they could bring about law suits for defamation. Beck and Sean Hannity are all propaganda. They provide no real value in news other then to bash a president for ratings.
First they would have to have sufficient proof the rumors were false and that they new they were false. Good luck with that the way obama's presidency is going so far. I think it would be far easier to charge Ivan with libel since he put his accusations, his name, and the accused all in the same post without a mentioning a shred of evidence. Can he proove the accusations or does he just feel it. But I dont hear any conservatives calling for that though. Thats the difference between conservatives and democrats, CONSERVATIVES believe in FREE SPEECH, democrats don't(unless it is themselves speaking).
So did oberman bring value when dissing bush, or was he going for ratings? A couple yrs. ago dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Its amazing how fast attitudes change when a Democrat gets in office.
 

Wax

82
0
First they would have to have sufficient proof the rumors were false and that they new they were false. Good luck with that the way obama's presidency is going so far. I think it would be far easier to charge Ivan with libel since he put his accusations, his name, and the accused all in the same post without a mentioning a shred of evidence. Can he proove the accusations or does he just feel it. But I dont hear any conservatives calling for that though. Thats the difference between conservatives and democrats, CONSERVATIVES believe in FREE SPEECH, democrats don't(unless it is themselves speaking).
So did oberman bring value when dissing bush, or was he going for ratings? A couple yrs. ago dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Its amazing how fast attitudes change when a Democrat gets in office.
Calling the president a Nazi that wants to create death panels are very clear indications of defamation. I don't see how you could argue against that.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,993
5,146
False claims made by extreme right-wing players on the US political scene are designed to terrorize people.

In my opinion, Palin, Limbaugh, Savage [who is banned from entry to the UK as a danger to society], Beck, and a number of others, esp from the talk radio scene, are essentially domestic terrorists.
Ivan, this is just unvelievably absurd drivel here. You're a person who has attacked the very definition of the word "terrorism" in the past here. So this is really just a game to you, trying to use inflammatory words in a way that benefits you - this doesn't bear any resemblance to the definition of "terrorism".

But it is nice to see you say so plainly that you don't accept the concept of freedom of speech when the speech doesn't agree with your opinion! Such opinions as yours are the antithesis of what a "free society" is.

[edit] Heck, we can even turn this arround: You are advocating a point of view that suggests Obama should imprison his political enemies. That would put him in league with the likes of the typical dictator!
 
Last edited:

kyleb

Perhaps we can start with the people who called Bush a racist fascist nazi criminal?
Why start with them before the ones who get so much air-time?

Granted, we allow our government too much power over regulating speech already by my standards, but it would be nice if more people would vote with the wallets to stop sponsoring such madness. I've sworn off cable TV all together, simply because there is so much trash on it; not just the "news" programing, but the the vast majority of the "entertainment" too, and even much of the supposedly "educational" stuff.
 

Jasongreat

Calling the president a Nazi that wants to create death panels are very clear indications of defamation. I don't see how you could argue against that.
As soon as you round up all the people that called bush a nazi fascist, I will start to take this argument seriously. I havent heard obama called a nazi, a socialist ive heard, but its kind of hard to argue your not a socialist when you are trying to socialize everything.
What happened to the old saying sticks and stones, how'd that end? Words will never hurt me. As long as we have a free press to refute the accusations there is nothing to worry about, unless you cant refute the accusations.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,993
5,146
Thats the difference between conservatives and democrats, CONSERVATIVES believe in FREE SPEECH, democrats don't(unless it is themselves speaking).
So did oberman bring value when dissing bush, or was he going for ratings? A couple yrs. ago dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Its amazing how fast attitudes change when a Democrat gets in office.
Agreed. Democrats are ostensibly the party that believes in individual rights, but the reality is that they don't. Freedom of speech is just the tip of the iceberg.
 

Choronzon

Why start with them before the ones who get so much air-time?

Granted, we allow our government too much power over regulating speech already by my standards, but it would be nice if more people would vote with the wallets to stop sponsoring such madness. I've sworn off cable TV all together, simply because there is so much trash on it; not just from the "news" programing, but the the vast majority of the "entertainment" too, and even much of the supposedly "educational" stuff.
The fact that you "vote with your wallet" seems perfectly reasonable to me. If someone is really spouting absolute nonsense about those in power the only proper punishment should be the contempt of those around him. I don't care that half of Ivan's life seems to be his rants about the "rethuglicans" or "O'Reilly kills abortion doctors", as long as it's a private person expressing his opinion, no matter how childish I personally feel that opinion is.

The minute those like him succeed in using the power of the state to imprison his political enemies, then we will probably all remember why we have the Second Amendment.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,993
5,146
Calling the president a Nazi that wants to create death panels are very clear indications of defamation. I don't see how you could argue against that.
You will see how here:

Defamation laws do not apply to politicians in the same way as they do to citizens. The standard is much tougher:
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3

But hey - if Obama feels defamed, he can always sue and see how it goes! :rolleyes:
 

Wax

82
0
As soon as you round up all the people that called bush a nazi fascist, I will start to take this argument seriously. I havent heard obama called a nazi, a socialist ive heard, but its kind of hard to argue your not a socialist when you are trying to socialize everything.
What happened to the old saying sticks and stones, how'd that end? Words will never hurt me. As long as we have a free press to refute the accusations there is nothing to worry about, unless you cant refute the accusations.
My answer was directly related to what Ivan was asking. I don't work for the Obama administration and I have no need or the money to pursue a timely defamation lawsuit. If the Obama administration really wanted to do something about Fox News then they could file defamation lawsuits. Plain and simple.

Obama was called a Nazi and a racists. Beck clearly started the racists comment and he could see a possible defamation lawsuit without the backing of Fox News lawyers.
 

kyleb

Agreed. Democrats are ostensibly the party that believes in individual rights, but the reality is that they don't. Freedom of speech is just the tip of the iceberg.
Sure, and Republicans belive in setting up "free speech zones" were people won't be heard, eh?

Such overgeneralization doesn't help anything, it only adds to the confusion.
 

Jasongreat

Last edited by a moderator:

Choronzon

Sure, and Republicans belive in setting up "free speech zones" were people won't be heard, eh?

Such overgeneralization doesn't help anything, it only adds to the confusion.
While I myself dislike First Amendment Zones, as they are more properly called, they just might be a necessary compromise. First of all, you don't have to enter a First Amendment Zone to exercise your right to free speech, but to exercise your rights to assemble in certain situations.

While I have to work hard to maintain objectivity, as I personally despise protesters, there needs to be some arrangements made so that people can exercise their rights in a particular place without depriving the rights of others.

Your right to protest an abortion clinic does not trump my right to enter one, or vice versa, and it's probably preferable to setting up areas for each as opposed to me having to knife-fight my way through a crowd or whatever.

So while Russ may have generalized unfairly, you just set up a straw man. Remember we are discussing the idea of labeling Americans domestic terrorists and imprisoning (I can only assume he meant imprisoning them, since he didn't state what we should do with these terrorists) them.
 

Jasongreat

Beck clearly started the racists comment and he could see a possible defamation lawsuit without the backing of Fox News lawyers.
I would say obama started the racist comments during the election, when he stated that the rebublicans were going to tell you to watch out for that obama guy, cause he doesnt look like all the other presidents, because hes not white. The only time I ever heard references to his color was his camp saying that the rebublicans said so. Although i've never heard a single sound byte to back it up.
 

kyleb

The only time nazi was used is by the person writing the article.
Hardly. There is plenty of quoting, here is a couple notable examples listed in the exscripts right there on the Google search page:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/6572072.html" [Broken]
Inside were articles such as “Nazi Precedent for Obama Health Plan,” and “Obama's Nazi Doctors and Their 'Reforms.' ” Admittedly, the “magazine” was from ...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.pitts24aug24,0,5874342.story" [Broken]
... up at protest rallies, a poster with a Hitler mustache drawn onto Obama's face and a pamphlet that says: "Act Now to Stop Obama's Nazi Health Plan! ..."
Granted, this is not suppsising when one considers FoxNews has Glen Beck even running stalk footage of Nazis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddZexeSYGoI".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jasongreat

Hardly. There is plenty of quoting, here is a couple notable examples listed in the exscripts right there on the Google search page:


Granted, this is not suppsising when one considers FoxNews has Glen Beck even running stalk footage of Nazis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddZexeSYGoI".
So his programs are naziish, hard to refute that. Not one says obama is a nazi. By the way wasnt it a former obama camper that was found to have placed the pictures of him with a hitlerstache in CA? I guess hes just trying to ramp up the public discussion?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Choronzon

Hardly. There is plenty of quoting, here is a couple notable examples listed in the exscripts right there on the Google search page:


Granted, this is not suppsising when one considers FoxNews has Glen Beck even running stalk footage of Nazis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddZexeSYGoI".
Those articles make very important points—that health care was nationalized in Nazi Germany as well. You might think that President Obama wouldn't abuse the massive powers that you are all willing to just hand him, but do you trust the next Republican administration with that same power?

Does it really seem so unlikely to you that ten or twenty years from now a conservative government's health service might decide not to provide treatment to AIDS patients who were infected through intravenous drug use or homosexual sex? There are many people in this country who would agree with such a policy.

If such a thing happens, when you're out protesting the "death panels", I want you to remember who gave them the power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kyleb

So while Russ may have generalized unfairly, you just set up a straw man.
I'm not even going to touch you apologisim for limiting peoples right to protest to where they won't be heard as am not trying to drag the thread off topic, but I do have to take issue with your misuse of the term "strawman".
Remember we are discussing the idea of labeling Americans domestic terrorists and imprisoning (I can only assume he meant imprisoning them, since he didn't state what we should do with these terrorists) them.
I recall Russ doing a fine job of pointing out the fact that the term is being improperly applied here, and had moved on to addressing his and Jasongreat's overgeneralization of Democrats.
 

Wax

82
0
Those articles make very important points—that health care was nationalized in Nazi Germany as well. You might think that President Obama wouldn't abuse the massive powers that you are all willing to just hand him, but do you trust the next Republican administration with that same power?

Does it really seem so unlikely to you that ten or twenty years from now a conservative government's health service might decide not to provide treatment to AIDS patients who were infected through intravenous drug use or homosexual sex? There are many people in this country who would agree with such a policy.

If such a thing happens, when you're out protesting the "death panels", I want you to remember who gave them the power.
Canada, Europe, and Austria all have nationalized health care. They are the real Nazi!!!:rolleyes:
 

Related Threads for: When does political hate speech become domestic terrorism?

  • Last Post
5
Replies
103
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
47
Views
10K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
356
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Top