Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News When does political hate speech become domestic terrorism?

  1. Sep 7, 2009 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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: Sep 7, 2009
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 7, 2009 #2
    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: Sep 7, 2009
  4. Sep 7, 2009 #3
    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.

    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.
     
  5. Sep 7, 2009 #4
    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.
     
  6. Sep 7, 2009 #5

    Wax

    User Avatar

    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.
     
  7. Sep 7, 2009 #6
    Perhaps we can start with the people who called Bush a racist fascist nazi criminal?
     
  8. Sep 7, 2009 #7
    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.
     
  9. Sep 7, 2009 #8

    Wax

    User Avatar

    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.
     
  10. Sep 7, 2009 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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: Sep 7, 2009
  11. Sep 7, 2009 #10
    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.
     
  12. Sep 7, 2009 #11
    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.
     
  13. Sep 7, 2009 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  14. Sep 7, 2009 #13
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  15. Sep 7, 2009 #14
    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.
     
  16. Sep 7, 2009 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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:
    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:
     
  17. Sep 7, 2009 #16

    Wax

    User Avatar

    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.
     
  18. Sep 7, 2009 #17
    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.
     
  19. Sep 7, 2009 #18
    The only time nazi was used is by the person writing the article. The header, and later down towards the bottom. His programs were compared to hitlers youth but he was never called a nazi. Besides who should have the most say in what their kids see, parents or the board of education?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  20. Sep 7, 2009 #19
    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.
     
  21. Sep 7, 2009 #20
    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: When does political hate speech become domestic terrorism?
Loading...