News When does political hate speech become domestic terrorism?

[ideasrule]

Some time ago a PF'er accused atheists of genocide; religious fanatics use "murder" to describe abortion; string theory and evolution are often called "religions"; and now people are calling Obama's plans Nazi-like and Ivan is accusing people of terrorism. The problem in all of these cases is that emotionally-charged words are being used outside their intended meanings, even though they may technically be applicable. By all means call the people who slander Obama idiots, liars, or character assassins, but not terrorists; that doesn't have the right connotation.

 

[Choronzon]

Some time ago a PF'er accused atheists of genocide; religious fanatics use "murder" to describe abortion; string theory and evolution are often called "religions"; and now people are calling Obama's plans Nazi-like and Ivan is accusing people of terrorism. The problem in all of these cases is that emotionally-charged words are being used outside their intended meanings, even though they may technically be applicable. By all means call the people who slander Obama idiots, liars, or character assassins, but not terrorists; that doesn't have the right connotation.

If the only thing Ivan was trying to do was call people names, it wouldn't bother me at all.

I guess it's possible I misunderstood, but it seems to me that he believes what these people are saying isn't protected by the First Amendment, and that they are domestic terrorists and should be prosecuted as such. At least, that's what I took from his comparing it to shouting fire in a crowded theater—that it wasn't protected speech but a prosecutable crime.

 

[Choronzon]

The bill is what congress makes it, and I am no expert on what they have going at this point, but Obama's push to increase heath care though improving efficiency has been widely reported, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/15/obama.ama/index.html" .

I still can't bring myself to agree. It seems to me that he isn't "increasing health care", so much as "increasing health coverage". There is a finite amount of it out there, and President Obama (and many with similar views) believe that it should be the government that decides who gets what.

Now, if he was proposing something like doubling the number of doctors in the next twenty years, building more clinics and hospitals, and research funding geared towards lowering the cost of medical procedures, I would vocally support him in that, even if it was expensive and saw my taxes rise as a consequence.

 

[kyleb]

I guess it's possible I misunderstood, but it seems to me that he believes what these people are saying isn't protected by the First Amendment, and that they are domestic terrorists and should be prosecuted as such.

Well he is asking if there should be a line some where, though I agree with you that there shouldn't. Using the classic example of shouting fire in a crowded theater, I don't consider it a crime if no one believes it. However, I do contend that people should be held responsible for their speech, someone shouting fire in a crowded theater resulting in people getting trampled is little different than someone constantly demonizing someone until he is murdered.

 

[kyleb]

... President Obama (and many with similar views) believe that it should be the government that decides who gets what.

How did you derive this conclusion?

 

[Choronzon]

Well he is asking if there should be a line some where, though I agree with you that there shouldn't. Using the classic example of shouting fire in a crowded theater, I don't consider it a crime if no one believes it. However, I do contend that people should be held responsible for their speech, someone shouting fire in a crowded theater resulting in people getting trampled is little different than someone constantly demonizing someone until he is murdered.

How far would you take it? Would there be a truth defense? For instance, when O'Reilly was excoriating Dr. Tiller on the air, I don't believe he said anything untrue—Dr. Tiller didkill thousands of organisms that were babies to some and fetuses to others.

If you think O'Reilly should be held responsible for his murder (I have no idea whether you do or not), should it be the same for a person who decries a pedophile or rapist who is later murdered? If I were to break off a relationship with some one in a cruel manner and that person killed themselves, would I be responsible for their suicide?

 

[drankin]

How did you derive this conclusion?

Are you serious? It's exactly what Obama is doing. Allowing the government to step in and decide who gets what, often referred to as "Obamacare".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't agree. I don't think there is something wrong with calling an opponent unamerican, or unpatriotic. I do think there is something inherently wrong in calling it terrorism and imprisoning them for it.

However much conservatives insulted liberals during Bush's presidency, it seems to me that his administration pretty much endured the insults.

And just incase you think I'm being hypocritical now, for calling "foul" while a Democrat is in office, I'm not criticizing people calling President Obama's opponents racists, or haters, or whatever—I'm criticizing Ivan's idea of charging them with terrorism.

I am specifically referring to people who complain about suggestions of curtailing their freedom of speech in certain situations and suggest that the freedom of speech of others be curtailed in other situations. This is the only kind of 'calling foul' I am referring to as hypocritical. Though there is also some hypocrisy involved in the ridiculous claims made about the presidents and people's reactions to them.

Surely we should prioritize the present over the past or the possibilities?

Of course! Now that people we agree with are in power and the people we do not agree with are the critics it seems the most convenient way to go about things doesn't it?
Sounds kind of like a banana republic.

 

[Choronzon]

How did you derive this conclusion?

I think it's manifestly obvious. But here's a link, and you can hear it right from his mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-_SGGcJu_c&feature=related"

 

[kyleb]

Of course! Now that people we agree with are in power and the people we do not agree with are the critics it seems the most convenient way to go about things doesn't it?
Sounds kind of like a banana republic.

You've mischaracterized my position to argue a strawman.

I think it's manifestly obvious. But here's a link, and you can hear it right from his mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-_SGGcJu_c&feature=related"

Ah, it seems you are conflating here.

 

[Choronzon]

Ah, it seems you are conflating here.

I don't understand your remark.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You've mischaracterized my position to argue a strawman.

A technical answer to the question you posed would be that older cases would be pushed first due to issues of statutory limitations.

Not going after older cases first would push them to the back, limitations would run out, and the cases would just generally grow stale and irrelevant.

So with the current party in power pushing for 'slanderers' (current) to be prosecuted it would have the effect of marginalizing, and criminalizing, the more zealous and outspoken of their political opponents, possibly strengthening their hold on power, while paying little to no notice to the use of similar tactics by their own supporters to supplant the previous power holder. Hence my reference to banana republics.

And my comment about it being convenient to do now is because I am quite certain that no one in the thread advocating such a practice would have been supporting it if we had been talking about suing the people who slander the president pre2009.

Please let me know where I have mischaracterized anything and what exactly the strawman I am arguing is.

 

[russ_watters]

I admit I'm pretty stunned that you think it's impossible.

Well I'm stunned that you are equating the two. Our government survived many things over the past 200 years, including Lincoln suspending much of the Bill of Rights for the purpose of keeping the union together. We haven't moved in the direction of dictatorship and there is no good reason to believe we will.

 

[russ_watters]

I adressed this https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2338761&postcount=29".

"I did not ask him to address free speech zones." That just says what your point isn't. So then you are confirming that you don't have a point?

 

[russ_watters]

Please note what the characterization created by drawing a Hitler mustache on a picture of someone represents.

No one has given an example of that - do you have one?

We're really straying from the OP here, though. While I'm sure you can find a random blogger or t-shirt maker doing that, the OP was about some of the louder voices of the right wing conducting terrorism. I think you should at least provide some connection to the OP with this line of argument.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

When does political hate speech become domestic terrorism?

Are you terrified by free speech? According to the song, this is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. For you it seems to be neither.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

Ivan, this is my second attempt to obtain your response.

Is Bill Ayers a danger to society (as per this thread)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/b...protester-talks-life-with.html?pagewanted=all

"''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago."

This is your thread, please respond.

 

[Al68]

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.

This coming from the most prolific spewer of hatred in this forum? This post is more hateful than anything on "right-wing" radio. Of course hate speech from the so called left has been their bread and butter for decades.

Where would the Democratic Party be without hate speech? If they refrained from accusing their opponents of being for the rich, not caring about poor people, and other hateful absurdities? They would be left with nothing to say, I suppose.

The funny thing is you refer to a small group of people who's speech is mild in comparison to mainstream Democrats. Stirring up hatred for Republicans is the only way they have gotten elected for decades.

How do you know if a Democrat is spewing hatred? Their mouth is open.