Why should bully tactics be protected,...

[Just Me]

Why should bullying and emotional abuse be protected as free speech?

Should right-wing bullying be given free reins?

I think it is appalling that the right-wing intimidation, name-calling, insults, emotional blackmail, demonization and nominalization of fellow Americans is tolerated. As a society, we have determined that the same kind of bullying will no longer be tolerated behavior by our children.

Yet, the adults in charge whose faces are familiar to most Americans should be free to engage in such abusive tactics every single day?

No. Personal responsibility is attached to the right of free speech. When people use that freedom in a manner which is clearly abusive and with an intention to bully/demonize fellow Americans, a line must be drawn,...some kind of line must be drawn or it will only get worse.

Political dissent against government policies and actions is one thing. Bullying fellow Americans is another matter entirely. There must be a means by which the former is protected while the latter is punished.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

1. What "means" do you suggest?

In which respects are current civil and criminal laws not adequate to deal with the situations you describe?

[Just Me]

6. Do civil and criminal laws prevent the bullying we've witnessed,...

,...in our schools, on our televisions? No.

Do civil and criminal laws prevent the bullying tactics used by the like of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc.? No.

We have to explore the "means" that can be used to protect our children and our people from such abusive behavior. I am open to suggestions.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

9. Well, since you're open to suggestions . . .

. . . the first thing I might suggest is you stop being so sensitive. We might not like what Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and their ilk are doing, but what are they doing beyond just talking? We live in a society where the inalienable right to speak one's mind is generally protected against governmental abridgment. I, for one, wouldn't want it any other way.

There is, of course, no "freedom of speech" per se when it comes to relationships between private parties -- that is, Limbaugh doesn't have a constitutionally-protected right to spout his nonsense on a radio program; he can be fired from his gig if and when those private parties footing the bill no longer wish to put him on the air. No newpaper is required to run Coulter's columns.

Your analogy to "bullying" be proscribed in a school setting is not apposite. As I see it, children are prohibited from bullying other children -- even when that bullying may consist solely of abusive language -- on the grounds that such behavior disrupts the educational environment and tends to preclude the child being bullied from gaining the full benefits of the educational experience. Conversely, you'll note that there is no general "prohibition," enforceable at law, of children bullying other children when they get back to their neighborhood. Only when the "bullying" rises to the level of assault, or a legally-cognizable threat of harm, or some other type of actionable tort is any relief (beyond self-help) generally available.

I guess, ultimately, I don't know what you're getting at, unless you're looking for some way to force the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world off the airways or out of the newspapers. I can't help you with any suggestions in that regard. I'm one of those old-fashioned types who believes that the remedy for objectionable speech from one is to promote more (and different) speech from another, not muzzling the speaker himself.

[Just Me]

10. Bullies always call their victims "sensitive", "silly", "weak", etc.

You're suggestion fails to address the problem and, instead, merely protects the aggressor. If you think aggressors and bullies should be protected, I doubt anything you suggest would be at all helpful to a very real problem that is becoming something much more than a mere menace.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

12. I think speech, even what you describe as "bullying" speech . . .

. . . should be protected. What is this "menace" you cite? I mean, I don't feel that Ann Coulter is "bullying" me at all. I just don't listen to the silly bitch.

In all honesty, I don't think I know what you're getting at. It seems to me that you may be suggesting something very radical, which is that speech that you find offensive should be prohibited. Am I wrong?

[forgethell]

16. I've got to add,

what exactly are you talking about?? What do you consider "bullying". From what I can gather from your posts, it is speech that you disagree with. I would be glad to learn differently.

[Just Me]

21. No. Bullying includes verbal abuse, harassment, demonization,...

,...in general, it includes an expression of hostility against others and does not have to become physically violent in order to be considered bullying.

The kind of bullying I am talking about is really a form of hate speech e.g. promoting hatred against others,...which the right-wing has been doing and continues to do practically unabated.

Personally, I think the current hate crime laws should be expanded to include "political persuasion".

[forgethell]

22. And you don't think

that your own speech is, well, maybe just a wee little bit hostile towards the right? Perhaps even promoting hatred of them? They could certainly make that case, and who knows, with the current make-up of the courts, they might even win the argument in court.

That's why it's important to squash such ideas as yours in the bud. Slippery slope, very slippery. If you want to be able to speak freely, then you have to allow those that disagree with you the same privilege.

[Just Me]

23. My opinions are directed at those who are in charge of our country.

It's called political dissent. I also have strong opinions about bullies, those who engage in political hate speech against whole groups of folks with little to no basis in fact, those who are utilizing fascist-type tactics against fellow Americans, etc...and I express those opinions AFTER these folks engage in such egregious behavior.

There are distinctions and, quite frankly, to the extent that reasonable limits are placed on political hate speech,...I have no doubt whatsoever that I would be able to easily adapt and still fully express myself,...whereas the bullies would be screamin' like they're the most put-upon victims on the face of the earth!!!

[forgethell]

24. Well, then

we'll just disagree. I think the idea is fascist, and I hope that after mature consideration you will change your mind.

I also hope that reality hitting you in the head is what caused you to do so. Remember, they are in control, so if your idea was passed into law, you, me, and everyone else of the liberal persuasion would be the first ones shut up, or shut down.

Cheers.:)

[Just Me]

25. Ahhh,...so placing limits on bullying and hate speech is fascism.

Michael Savage referred to civil/human rights activists as fascists because they sought to place limitations on hate-driven behavior.

It is quite odd to me that an idea concerning reasonable limits on behavior which resembles fascism,....would be characterized as fascist.

:freak:

[forgethell]

27. Behavior can certainly be constrained.

We are talking about speech.

Also, just as an aside, perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to ascribe to "hate" the motives of those who disagree with us. Perhaps they have some points that should be considered. Perhaps not. But in any event, this is a two-edged sword, something that can cut us, as well as them. Somehow, you do not seem to understand this.

But perhaps you would be willing to describe what particular words you find so intimidating???

[rinsd]

35. Behavior or speech?

"Michael Savage referred to civil/human rights activists as fascists because they sought to place limitations on hate-driven behavior."

So he's wrong and stupid and has that right to be.

"It is quite odd to me that an idea concerning reasonable limits on behavior which resembles fascism,....would be characterized as fascist."

It seems odd to me that someone wants to put further restrictions on speech in this day and age particularly as an emotional response to one asshats idea of political protest.

[Just Me]

37. Had someone placed limits on the hate spate that enabled the,....

,...evolution of prior fascist states,...maybe, those fascists could have been stopped before the damage was already done.

Restrictions on bullying and hate speech only restricts the bullies and hate mongers. People are able to speak freely without bullying and hatred.

[Grooner Five]

38. If I call GWB a Nazi

Does that mean I hate him? Am I a bully?

Because according to what you are suggesting, I would be a hateful bully, and a candidate for silencing.

[Just Me]

40. First, you fail to separate political dissent from bullying,...

,...fellow Americans. Political dissent is aimed at those who govern.

Second, comparing specific behavior/actions by an individual to tactics specifically employed by fascists or nazis is more akin to a statement of fact than political hate speech.

Third, placing reasonable limits on political hate speech would not be an unreasonable burden upon free speech since ideas can be freely exchanged and debated without insisting upon emotional and verbal abuse.

Fourth, the reasonable limits I propose would only be vehemently opposed by those who utilize bully tactics or hate in order to dominate.

[rinsd]

48. "Political dissent is aimed at those who govern. "

Very true....it also manifests itsself in many other instituitions whether ti be entertainment, academic private business etc etc.

"Second, comparing specific behavior/actions by an individual to tactics specifically employed by fascists or nazis is more akin to a statement of fact than political hate speech. "

Yes, such as seeking a restiction of speech you don't agree with based on tactics is rather fascist.

"Third, placing reasonable limits on political hate speech would not be an unreasonable burden upon free speech since ideas can be freely exchanged and debated without insisting upon emotional and verbal abuse."

See that's the problem, reasonable limits tend to get unreasonable. Especially when we are talking about speech.

"Fourth, the reasonable limits I propose would only be vehemently opposed by those who utilize bully tactics or hate in order to dominate."

In other words, you're a hateful bully if you don't agree with me. I dare say that's hateful and intimidating.

[Just Me]

53. No. You're a hateful bully if you target me, make false accusations,....

,...against me, "label me",...and express hatred towards me because I think differently or fail to fit in your box.

Disagreeing with a person's point of view and expressing your own does not require bullying tactics and hatred.

On edit: I am really enjoying this thread,...aren't you?

[rinsd]

65. LOL....

Okay, I think someone is monkeyfishing because the above post couldn't be funnier.

[Just Me]

67. It's only funny to bullies,...not to those who are on the receiving end.

Have you ever been on the receiving end of bullying?

[rinsd]

74. "Have you ever been on the receiving end of bullying?"

In what respect? Politically? On this disucussion board? When I was a child?

I would have to answer yes on all counts. Thankfully, I was also taught to fight back with speech rather than imposing some penalty through a third party.

[Just Me]

80. Please share,...because your positions protect the bully, not the victim.

I would be very interested to know your experiences, what kind of "speech" you have utilized to overcome such bullies, and the success of your "speech" against those predators. They seem to be more free to wage hate than decent people are to "speak",...to me.

But, hey,...we all observe the world from where we sit and watch and engage. Yes?

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Just Me]

85. I am not a self righteous lying hypocrite,...

,...for asking you whether or not you want to protect bullying and hate rather than protect people such that they feel free to speak!!!

[forgethell]

125. yeah, plenty of times.

the thing to do is grow a backbone and give as good as you get. The answer to wrong speech is more right speech.

[forgethell]

124. Still,

I'm pretty sure the conservatives consider calling Bush a Nazi qualifies as hate-speech. And they are in power. Who the HELL gets to decide? Remember we were all in favor of the Supreme Court taking over state matters until 2000. If the government gets this power, be very sure that they will abuse it. And it is We, the liberals, the Democrats, the progressives, that will suffer for it.

Free speech has been a greater friend to the progressive side than the conservative side historically. We tamper with it at our own risk. Only a fool thinks otherwise.

[rinsd]

30. Free speech ain't pretty...

"Personally, I think the current hate crime laws should be expanded to include "political persuasion"."

Great now we can see Robert Byrd off to jail because he called Republicans Nazis.

Ward Churchill would now be spending some hard time behind bars.

Speech should be countered with speech, the government should stay the fuck out of qualifying what is okay and what isn't, especially when it comes to political speech.

[Just Me]

39. You're mischaractering what he said. Moreover, what he stated was true.

I'm not going to allow you to get away with mischaracterizing, as the right-wing is, Senator Byrd's speech!!!

Hell, Tim Carney compared Democrats to Nazis, literally. He didn't analogize any specific action to anything resembling Nazism. He just called them Nazis on completely baseless grounds.

When the Republicans got caught stealing Democrats' computer files, the RNC called the Democrats demand for investigation, fascism.

The only people who would be significantly impacted are those who utilize the dialogue of hatred and the bullying emotional abuse to their advantage.

Are you advocating for the right-wing?
Do you believe ideas cannot be expressed unless the rule of the jungle prevails?
Do you advocate no limits on bullying or political hate speech?
If so, do you realize how your position appeases the extreme right-wing far, far more than advances moderates/liberals/progressives?

[rinsd]

45. Mischaracterizing?

That's the freaking point.

Political hyperbole like Byrd's, Carney's and the Baltimore mayor who said Bush was causing another 9-11 for cities should be protected.

"The only people who would be significantly impacted are those who utilize the dialogue of hatred and the bullying emotional abuse to their advantage."

This is incredibly naive.

"Are you advocating for the right-wing?"

Yeah that's the ticket. Arguing against restriction on free speech is rw. Even better, I am sure it will please you, that this may be a violation of DU's own speech code.

"Do you believe ideas cannot be expressed unless the rule of the jungle prevails?"

No. I believe even ideas expressed in that fashion are free speech. I would of course welcome more civil discourse. Making laws resrticting speech isn't the way to go about it.

"Do you advocate no limits on bullying or political hate speech?"

There's no such thing as political hate pseech. It's not a can of worms I want opened. And you keep saying bullying, I mention in this thread about PETA specfically targeting J-Lo. They plan to individual target her for protest in hopes of intimidating her into taking a less fur friendly position. They went after Jason Alexander until he agreed to stop doing KFC commercials. Not exactly my favorite kind of tactic but its their right to do so. I bring this up because you seem to naively cling to this as a weapon to punish your enemies. It doesn't have anything to do with creating a more civil climate. Your assumption that only the right would be affected is misguided at best.

"If so, do you realize how your position appeases the extreme right-wing far, far more than advances moderates/liberals/progressives?"

It also appeases the far left wing, the middle and all points in between. Free speech means for everybody even the stupid.

[Just Me]

49. Uh, you mischaracterized the speech,...not me.

The only "naive" issue included in this discussion involves the fact that the moderates, progressives and liberals have allowed the right-wing to abuse their tolerance and to manipulate "free speech" such that "hate" can be spread on a daily basis. None of the moderates, progressives or liberals I know engage in such dialogue of hatred,...only the right-wing, fascist-types or the left-wing extremists (and I have yet to meet a single one *LOL*).

As I stated before, placing reasonable limits on political hate speech would hurt,...well,...only the abusive extremists and actually advance "free speech" because people would feel free from abuse,...and therefore free to speak.

[rinsd]

56. We must restrict speech to make it more free!

How Orwellian!

Here's a laugher for ya,you've repeatedly called/implied that I and others on this thread are a right winger. You have done so as a means to intimidate and brand people who disagree with your position.

"
None of the moderates, progressives or liberals I know engage in such dialogue of hatred,..."

LOL....you have over a 1000 posts here nnd you've never seen a DUer engage in hateful dialog...either you're lying or have your head in the sand.

Oh wait I just realized you would add the qualifier that people who do so aren't "real" liberlas, progressives, moderates. So we'll just get that out of the way.

[Just Me]

61. No. Restrictions on hate and bullying gives greater freedom to the people

to speak.

Restrictions on hate and bullying gives greater freedom to the people to speak.

What makes that concept so difficult for you to understand?

[rinsd]

63. "What makes that concept so difficult for you to understand?"

Because we have to restrict speech to save it sounds ridiculous on its face.

[Just Me]

69. No. Restricting bullying and hate allows people to exercise "free speech".

Are you still having trouble?

Do you believe people feel more or less free to speak when protected from bullies and hatred?

[rinsd]

72. Love putting free speech in quotes....

...it at least acknowledges what you seek isn't free speech.

"Do you believe people feel more or less free to speak when protected from bullies and hatred?"

With the government as arbiter of what is and isn't appropriate speech? Yup, nothing says feel free what to say like the government stamp of approval.

Freedom for all because freedom for some is really freedom for none.

[Just Me]

78. "Freedom" to speak should be protected against bullies and hate-mongers.

Don't you want to protect our people against all brutality,...such that they are free to speak?

Do you believe a law against psychological and emotional brutality is bad?

We have a bzillion laws governing our every behavior,...yet, you advocate against a law that would limit bullying and hatred against Americans who don't toe the line with the bullies who are dominating our country?

:shrug:

Is there something "bad" about limiting such things? Only the right-wingers have been advocating against expansion of hate speech and laws. Only the right-wingers have been vehement that their emotional brutality is protected by "free speech".

I do not understand why you are taking a position consistent with these folks?

Whatever fears you have about "free speech" have occurred under the thumb of a right-wing hate machine,...and you still protect their hate?

Why? Why?

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Just Me]

81. That's personal. Calling me a "fucking hypocrite" is NOT okay.

I said you are advocating for a position. I never called you anything. I simply stated that you are advocating a right-wing position. Sorry,...but, you are advocating a right-wing position.

I didn't say you are right-wing.

[rinsd]

87. No, you mischaracterized my position....

....then you went back and edited your posts that for all intensive purposes called me a right winger.

If advocating protection of all speech is a right wing position, I'll take my place next to Larry Flynt and the ACLU and their cadres seeking to bully America!

Personal or not, you're lying and you're a hypocrite.

I can't comment on the fucking part, so I'll take that back.

[Just Me]

90. Um,...accusing me of editing all my posts is kinda' paranoid.

I couldn't possibly edit all my posts and take on all these posters, simultaneously, BY MYSELF!!!!

Placing limits on bullying and hate speech behavior is NOT nearly the restriction on free speech that you propose.

To the contrary, placing limits on such oppressive behavior EXPANDS the freedom of people to speak.

Most folks NEED protection from such emotional abuse in order to feel free to speak.

And, sincerely,...I do not see how Larry Flynt or the ACLU mixes in this discussion about protecting the weak from the bullies.

[rinsd]

96. Reading comprehension is good....

I stated that you edited the posts that called me a rightwinger for all intensive purposes. You did.

"Placing limits on bullying and hate speech behavior is NOT nearly the restriction on free speech that you propose."

And the Patriot Act was just to improve our security. And beofre that the Homeland Security Act of 96 was just to make it easier for the FBI to catch bad guys. And campaign finance reform will never be used to silence individuals(see the recent discussion of the FEC about the internet and bloggers). Emminent domain will only be used for the purpose of the greater good. Shall I go on with examples of the government overstepping and expanding laws that are to their benefit?


"Most folks NEED protection from such emotional abuse in order to feel free to speak"

Which folks? Who needs the government to step in because Ralph the drunk at the end of the bar called you a pinko?

"I do not see how Larry Flynt or the ACLU mixes in this discussion about protecting the weak from the bullies."

Because both believe that speech no matter how disgusting or disagreeable should be free.

[Just Me]

97. Sweetheart,...I did not edit all my posts. Seriously,...I didn't.

Why don't we just take a "time out",...'cause,...well, I'd prefer to talk to one another rather than past eachother.

But, seriously,...I haven't been editing posts to the tune of your calibration. I just don't do that shit. I am not deceptive.

[forgethell]

129. People

do not need protection from speech. If they can't defend their positions, they shouldn't put them out there for ridicule. If they're gonna cry if someone disagrees with them, or calls them a name, they need therapy.

People need to be protected only from violence. Their emotional problems are their own responsibility. No one has an obligation to be sensitive. If you don't like what someone has to say, shun him.

For instance, you could put me on alert, or ignore me using sheer will-power not to gaze at my fascinating posts. But, your position that we should restrict "hate speech" is foolish and dangerous.

To give you one example, we would have to stop making criticisms of "white men". Racist, sexist. Sure, you'll have some rationalization why this is not hate speech. But a very good case could be made that it is. Frankly, I think it is, and have protested against it on several recent threads, and will continue to do so. And who decides? Well, who happens to be in power right now?

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Currently, we hardly have the political power to scratch our own ass.

[Debs]

136. I think

The bottom line here is you simply have no right NOT to be offended. If being offended somehow intimidates you then you need to work on that. You are offended because someone called democrats Nazis? Good, its stupid and offensive. Did that make you shrink back and say, please don't hurt me? If you would take his right to make such an ignorant statement away, what do you say about those who rightfully show the parallels between Nazi Germany and the Bush administrations justification for their respective invasions? And to those who would then call the Neo cons Nazis? Do you think that goes to far? So what? Who is the arbiter of what goes too far? No you just don't have a right not to be offended. I have had this same argument with a right winger I know who said Micheal Moore had no right to make the comments he made at the Oscars because they offended her. Suck it up

[forgethell]

140. I think that's bascially

what I was trying to get at.

[forgethell]

127. They should be protected

only from physical violence, or the threat thereof. If they can't stand up to verbal argument,no matter how loud or ignorant, then they are not ready to participate in the marketplace of ideas and should stay out of it.

They need to grow a backbone and fight back with better ideas, not governmental restrictions on speech, which will hurt the left far more than the right.

[forgethell]

126. Unfortunately for your argument,

the right wing as the same constitutional rights as everybody else. Obviously, you are not a believer in free speech, only "progressive", I use the word advisedly, speech. This is simply fascist, and nothing you can say will make it anything different.

There was no free speech in Nazi Germany, there was no free speech in the Soviet Union, there is no free speech in Cuba. Oppressive dictatorships everyone, and if we really want to assist the Nazification of America, then restrict free speech.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. All bullying that is not"fighting words", such as death threats

those words likely to incite violence, inflict injury or libel, and other minor exceptions, should be considered protected speech.

I am all for the US constitution.

That said, Ann Coulter should be locked up right now since she repeatedly utters words that cross that line such as kill all the liberals etc. One of these days one of these nuts will incite violence.

[elehhhhna]

3. "BA" really means "BorderlinePersonalityDisorder Association"

[2diagnosis]

4. "Tenure" ?

nt

[forgethell]

5. If it's about ideas,

policies, etc. it isn't bullying. Left-wingers do the same thing.

[Just Me]

7. And from what I've witnessed, they go to jail.

Yet, the right-wing emotional abuse machine humiliates/intimidates/demonizes every single day!!!!

What they are doing is NOT about ideas,...it is bullying and it is abusive!

[forgethell]

14. Can you give me an

example of anyone, left- or right-wing, who has gone to jail, in America, Canada and Sweden don't count, solely for something they said??

So what if they humiliate or demonize, or even intimidate as long as it is not by physical force, including the threat of jail time? That's what freedom of speech is all about? There is no right not to be offended or humiliated.

[AgadorSparticus]

19. people were hauled off to jail last year for wearing a "bush sucks" tshirt

[forgethell]

20. Well, I guess you're

right. People were arrested in Pittsburgh recently, too for peacefully protesting gay marriage, or something. Peaceful protestors are also arrested in front of abortion clinics.

I apologize.

[Just Me]

71. You have witnessed a "peaceful protestor" in front of an abortion clinic?

*LOL*

Are you fucking kidding me?

You witnessed a "peaceful protestor" against gays or abortion arrested?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Apparently, you have never been at those right-wing protests. Those people are inciteful beyond belief!!!

[AgadorSparticus]

123. you got that right. abortion clinics have been bombed & abortion

docs have been threatened with their lives. those abortion clinic workers have complained how the "peaceful" protesters would physically attack them for going to work. they needed police protection to go inside. yea, peaceful my ass.

[Bridget Burke]

8. Because of the Constitution.....

Unless they're inciting outright violence, even right wing assholes have the right to free speech.

However, they need to be answered loudly, with passion.

[Just Me]

11. They have certainly stepped over the line, inciting hatred and violence,

on way, way too many occasions and continue to get away with it. And, it's just gettting worse!

I do agree with you that, at minimum, these emotionally abusive bullies must be confronted.

[forgethell]

15. Examples, please. n/t

[magellan]

128. Here's an example

In a public speech on February 25, 2005, James Gibbons (R-NV) insulted liberals, then said to the crowd that it was “too damn bad we didn’t buy them a ticket” to become human shields in Iraq.

There are worse examples from RW talking heads, but this comment was made by a CONGRESSMAN.

Edited to add: I just caught Countdown and learned Gibbons not only said this crap, but PLAGIARIZED parts of his speech. Yet another fine example set by the Moral Majority in this country.

[rinsd]

36. They? Who is this They?

Careful now you don't want to make a generalization and target a group via namecalling.

[trogdor]

13. If I were a university president.

...I would be watching the damn College Repigs like a hawk, just waiting for them to step so much as one toe over the line, then I would ban them from campus, and make them justify their existence. This bullying shit happens because no one challenges them. Any college president who doesn't fight this shit should be fired.

[starwolf]

17. I've seen it on all sides

College presidents do little to protect anyone. Some of the most vicious stuff on campus as of late has its roots in the Middle East. Nasty business all the way around. I think without the proliferation of video cams and phones, the violence on all sides would be much worse.

[rinsd]

29. Free speech only if you agree with me....

...what wonderful concept.

[Just Me]

44. No. People can disagree without hate, without harassment, without,...

,...bullying.

Didn't you know that? :eyes:

[rinsd]

52. Of course they can....

...but is a law to make them do so really the smart thing to do?

[steelyboo]

60. Oh, So free speech, so long as your civil...Who gets to decide "Civil"?

You might wanna get some cleats and a grappling hook to make it up this slope you created.

[Just Me]

70. Gee, am I being surrounded *LOL*!!!

Hi, sweetie!!!

Well,...I certainly wouldn't want the definition of "civil" left in the hands of the abuser,...would you?

[steelyboo]

98. Well gee, Darling, maybe you are being surrounded because the idea you

speak of is, in progressive circles, offensive on its face (any limit to free political speech is too much IMHO), and people strongly disagree? You are absolutely correct, I would not want it in the hands of the abuser. However, if we just ignore your suggestion completely, then your quip becomes a moot point, just as your argument should be.

[Just Me]

102. *LOL* EW! If ever I want some protection, you will NOT be on my list.

If ever I want protection from verbal and emotional abuse such that I might exercise the FREEDOM to express my point of view,...I'll be sure to run away from you.

[steelyboo]

103. Don't worry, Im a liberal, I'll stop to help you anyway, especially about

free speech. Even though I don't agree with you, at least Im not suggesting anyone has the right to silence you.

[Just Me]

105. I don't think so. No liberal who protects emotional abuse protects me.

Bullying and hate speech are emotionally abusive ways of silencing speech.

If you've ever worked around areas addressing domestic abuse,...you would know that. If you've ever studied the psy-ops associated with fascism,...you would know that.

[steelyboo]

109. So, because some in society are more susceptable to a form of emotional

sway than others, we should give away some of the fundamental tenet of democracy, even an inch? Will you want to outlaw sweet-talking next? Its exploitation of an emotion (love) for a desired result, just as hate speech is. Where is the line drawn?(And no, just because love is considered better than hate, doesnt mean you can't be abused by love just as bad as hate, the pimp has to show both, right?)

I don't mind restrictions on commercial speech, but there are no restrictions to be applied to political speech, period. Have a good night.

[Just Me]

122. Yep. The strong are burdened with protecting the weak.

Questions?

[forgethell]

131. yeah!

Have you considered anything that anybody else has said?

I didn't think so.

[forgethell]

130. So is ridicule, but

liberal and progressive comedians used it very successfully during the civil rights era.

Your ides is far more fascist than anything else suggested on this thread. If you haven't got the guts to take a little ridicule, a few names, even a few curses, then you can't stand the heat and you should stay out of the kitchen.

Your argument is pathetic, but dangerous. You have not one intellectual argument. Only an emotional one about the need for "protection" from "bullies". That is, to shut up your opponents, if they don't discuss your ideas in the way you would like.

[starwolf]

18. Its the price of liberty

If my right to speak is limited because you claim you are offended or feel intimidated, then I have truly lost the right of free speech. Yes there are limits on this, like cross burning, but outside of such extremes, its the price of liberty.

The rights that allow me to protest what I see as injustices are the same ones that allow the anti-choice people to have posters of fetuses on the side of trucks.

Speech that truly leads to injury, like Metzger and his ilk, is punishable as it stands now.

[DrGonzoLives]

26. I guess fascism is good

as long as we're the ones doing it?

[forgethell]

28. That does seem to

be the general theme of this thread.

:D

[rinsd]

31. Shhh.....it's all for the good of the people....

....and since its the left I think people would be happier with the label Stalinism.

[Just Me]

41. Only right-wingers call reasonable limits on hate speech - fascism.

So, I find your position confusing.

[DrGonzoLives]

111. Nice try

The OP was not talking about "hate speech," they were talking about nasty things said about liberals.

And, if speech does not incite violence, then why outlaw it?

[Grooner Five]

32. I find it incredible

that people can really think this way. It's actually amazing.

I don't think much of Ann Coulter, but would fight to the death with any force looking to silence her right to free speech (and thus mine).

[applegrove]

33. You have to punch through to the truth and that means teaching

others about the specific bullying tactics. If you call them on their lack of adult thinking and adult behavior they will have to adjust because the payoff will not be there anymore. Like the articles on psychology posted here... Bush is the type who doesn't take ownership of his considerably negative emotions on the whole...he is hateful, sadistic, mean, punitive, etc... but he & his followers mirror him, thinks he is perfect in that black and white way. He thinks he is incapable of 'wrong' thinking or behavior. He thinks his enemies have all those qualities. He wants his enemies/opposition to be punished .. in actuality it is he who has the problem.

One of those psychological articles talked about how to get to the 'heards' Liberals first have to take ownership of their own delusions and beliefs that are wrong & childish. That only by digging deep and grieving deep and becoming much more wise adults...and acting like adults (not re-acting but thinking first) and thinking in discerning ways... can you punch through to the others who drink the Kool - Aid. You have to be able to clearly and correctly identify your boundaries and speak your heart in an assertive fashion with/out resorting to blind anger. To punch through to the truth with these people you have to be clear that you speak as a loving adult who comes from a truly good and fair place.

As I understand it!!

[rinsd]

34. Yeah tell PETA to leave J-Lo alone!

Unless its a threat of violence or intended to create such a situation, speech even the nasty bigoted kind is and should be protected.

[Just Me]

43. You are wrong. Nasty, biggoted speech is NOT protected. It's a crime.

:eyes:

[Padraig18]

50. I'd like a legal citation for that assertion.

I'd lie to know in what jurisdiction it is considered to be a crime.

[Just Me]

54. Give me a minute,...I being politically gang-banged here,...eom

[Just Me]

55. Okay,...here is a couple of links that you will give you some direction.

I'll provide more as I continue to fight off opposition *LOL* to the right-wing hate machine.

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/cpd.nsf/pages/hatecrimes

http://www.adl.org/prejudice/prejudice_hate_crime.asp

[Padraig18]

57. Umm...

The first link is Australian, and the second clearly states that hate crimes must involve an ACT, not just speech.

[rinsd]

62. First link is for South Wales.....

And the 2nd deals with ADL's efforts. Hate crime laws in this country are used as sentencing enhancers for other crimes such as murder, property destruction, threats etc. Though there are some cases dealing with intimidation such as cross burning.

Try again.

[Just Me]

75. The advocacy to protect hatred and bullying are keeping me busy...

,...don't worry, I'll get you more links,...although you could demonstrate your own interest in protecting "the people" from such things that they would feel FREE to exercise FREE SPEECH.

But, no.

[Padraig18]

76. I've seen no one advocating those things.

I've seen you accuse poeple of doing that, and I've seen you characterize some posts that way, but I've yet to read a single post that says hatred and bullying are good things, and I have excelent reading-with-comprehension skills.

[Just Me]

84. Are those posters protecting bullies and hate-mongers?

They certainly seem opposed to placing limits on bullies and hate-mongers.

Exactly how am I supposed to interpret that?

The only persons I have ever run across that advocate such things are right-wing character assassins and power-mongers.

I have never run across any moderate or centrist ever seek to protect bullying and hate-mongering, ever.

:shrug:

Any rational person would simply point out such things.

[Padraig18]

91. And well they should oppose putting limits on free speech.

Some of the most ardent proponents of free speech are hardcore liberals. My question to you, yet again, is WHO gets to decide what sort of speech should be curtailed? You? Me? Alberto Gonzales? Antonin Scalia?

[Just Me]

104. Would you protect me against verbal/emotional abuse so I am free to speak?

Is my freedom to speak important enough that you would protect me from verbal and emotional abuse?

I wonder.

[forgethell]

143. I wouldn't.

I'd protect you against physical violence, but if they want to say you're an idiot or something, or a fascist, or a communist, or whatever it is, you need to be able to take it and give as good as you get.

I don't know which particular "hate" speech you are most agonized about, that is, what offends you personally, rather than just politically. But the marketplace of ideas is rough. I don't think we want the government monitoring it though. that is really intimidating.

Grow up and get over yourself. You'll be a lot happier.

[Debs]

137. Yes I AM

Protecting the rights of bullies, and hatemongers because thats the only way to protect MY rights, see rights are funny things unless everyone has them, NO ONE HAS THEM. Morons like Coulter have to have her free speech rights protected so that I can be assured I have them. Make someone an arbiter on what constitutes hateful bullying speech and there is no doubt a rightwinger will get the job. Look at how the right is snivelling right now about how mean and hateful the left is for simply pointing out their lies and abusiveness. IF you got what you wanted it would be used against us and never effect Limbaugh.

[rinsd]

77. More orwellian bullshit....

Protect bullying and hatred because I don't believe in restriction on speech.

Gee, that sounds like rwers saying those against the war hate America.

[Just Me]

86. NOOOO. It is the reality being created on this thread. *LOL*

I am saving it, too :* for future encounters.

I am so glad we are having this conversation!!! :bounce:

[rinsd]

51. Really?

Show me the law.

Nasty bigoted speech is protected. The ACLU fights for that all the time. And rightfully so because if the law can protect even the most vile among us, it protects all of us.

[forgethell]

132. Not in the United States.

Study the Constitution.

[Padraig18]

42. Thank you, no--- I like free speech just fine.

Learn to run with the big dogs, or stay on the porch with the puppies, IMO.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Padraig18]

47. Horseshit.

Just exactly WHO is going to get to define what constitutes 'bullying'? Free speech is often boisterous, and our Founding Fathers wrote it into the 1st Amendment for a reason, if you'll recall you high-school civics class.

[Just Me]

58. I know WHO is restricting free speech rather than hate speech.

They suppress it with permits, passes, fences, spook penetration, intimidation, suspension of civil rights, hit lists, laws on professors and protestors and dissidents,...and "they" spread hatred every single day!!!

[Padraig18]

59. True, but irrelevant.

Again, just WHO gets to define what 'bullying' is?

[Just Me]

66. I sure as hell don't want to allow the damned bullies to define it!!!

Do you?

Hmmmm,...maybe, we should explore an example.

I tell you that I think the sky is blue. You look up and respond: "you must be stupid because the sky is covered with clouds,...what the hell is your problem". I respond that, when the clouds aren't around the sky is blue and if you could get above the clouds the sky is blue. You respond, "you must a fascist/liberal/commie and you are bad for our country,...you're a traitor".

Who would be the best judge of bullying in that case,...in any case?

[Padraig18]

68. As a journalist and author, I don't want ANYONE defining it.

To be short and sweet about it, so long as I don't commit a criminal verbal assault on someone, it's no one's 'right' to 'protect' anyone from anything I say or write.

[Debs]

138. Who said

Timid men prefer the quiet of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty?

[Darth_Kitten]

64. Those who can do, those who can't, bully

http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/index.htm

This site I found very useful in helping identify and cope (or try to anyways!) with some of the bullies I've encountered in my own life. For your information.

We must feel free to identify and see bullies for what they are: insecure weaklings with a fear of being exposed.

I so agree that bullies should be punished and exposed for who they are. :(

[Illinois_Dem]

73. I believe that you're missing the point of the 1st Amendment, ma'am.

'Free speech' was considerably 'rougher' back in John Adam's and Thomas Jefferson's day than it is today, yet they still saw fit to protect it. I'm quite uncomfortable with anyone 'tweaking' my right to speak freely, which is precisely what it sounds as though you're advocating.

[Just Me]

88. AHHH!!! Welcome to DU!!!!

:hi:

Do you beat others down with your words?

Is beating someone up with your words something you want to protect?

Can you speak freely without beating up others?

Should you have the freedom to emotionally traumatize, lie, abuse others with your tongue?

Would you feel like shit if you emotionally traumatized, lied or abused others with your words?

Do you have any responsibility for what you say to others?

[Illinois_Dem]

89. Again, ma'am, the 1st Amendment means what it says.

Those questions change the fact that the 1st Amendment protects free speech not at all. Free speech is not neccessarily polite speech, or feel-good speech, or calm-and-collected speech, yet it is nonetheless protected by the 1st Amendment to our Constitution.

[Just Me]

92. Actually, it protects against SUPPRESSION of speech.

What I am talking about is the suppression of speech via bullying and hate.

[Padraig18]

94. And you are ADVOCATING *suppression* of free speech.

Have you suddenly switched sides?

:wtf:

[Just Me]

106. No. I am advocating against those who use bullying and hatred to suppress

free speech.

I wonder why you do not understand how such behavior is oppressive and suppresses other's freedom to express themselves.

You must be accustomed to always winning, never one to feel oppressed. Well, you are not the epitome of a typical person.

Maybe, you are all for the "rule of the jungle" such that the weak can be fucked and silenced by the strong.

I am not.

[Spinoza]

82. Who gets to decide

exactly what constitutes "bullying"? Do you really want an Ashcroft, or his equivalent, to have that power? The people who get to decide this won't necessarily be good people like us, who would never dream of abusing this power. Better that noone be given the power to prevent others from speaking freely. Otherwise, a functionary may someday decide that YOUR speech is "bullying" and shut you up.

"If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind."
John Stuart Mill

[Just Me]

93. They are dictating,...I want protection against their suppression.

Don't you?

[Padraig18]

95. How are they 'supressing' you?

And who is this 'they'?

[Just Me]

99. Circular. Read through the thread. I am an advocate for the suppressed.

You are not advocating on their behalf.

[Padraig18]

100. That's because they're not 'oppressed'.

It's not circular, once you understand that I don't agree with your primary assertion.

[Just Me]

107. No. You are not oppressed. There are those unlike you,...

,...who are oppressed by such bullying and abuse.

Don't you want to protect those who are weaker than you?

[Padraig18]

113. I reject your premise AND the way you frame the argument.

I will protect those 'weaker' than me from any criminal act, but no, I will not protect their 'right' to wear their heart on their sleeves. Just because it is done for a noble purpose doesn't make fascism not fascism.

[Spinoza]

101. Nope.

I want absolute freedom of speech for all. Period.

[Just Me]

108. There is no freedom without protection from assholes/predators/tyrants.

Yes?

[Spinoza]

115. NO

Who gets to decide exactly and specifically what constitutes "assholes/predators/tyrants". Whose definition prevails? Even assuming a definition can be agreed upon by all (which is ridiculous) who gets to decide whether a specific case is included under the agreed definition. What makes you think that the people who get to decide will be people YOU agree with? Do you really want an Ashcroft to have this kind of power? As Plato stated: "Who watches the watchers"? No thank you. We are all better off if noone can have that kind of power over the rest of us.

[Just Me]

117. The victims get to decide!!!!

Not the predators.

Since when is it a bad thing to protect the weak from the bully? Since when is that a value held by any of us?

[Padraig18]

118. Straw man.

That's a specious argument, at best.

[Spinoza]

119. Who decides

who is a "victim"? What is the definition of "victim" that we can all agree on? Who decides if the definition covers a specific case? Who stops liars (they do exist) from CLAIMING to be "victims" but making accusations against others for others reasons including dislike. It does happen. What if someone would claim to be YOUR "victim" and want you to shut off? Don't you see ANY possibility for huge abuse? No thank you, and no thank you and no than you, no. I'll stick with the first amendment. Ultimately, I don't even want ME to have the power to prevent any other adults from speaking ANYTHING AT ALL, however hateful I may THINK it is. Since I can't trust myself with that kind of power, I certainly don't want you to have it. You see, even as myself, I don't trust you.

[American Tragedy]

120. Who are these "victims"? How are they being "suppressed"?

What the hell are you talking about?

You've spent the entire thread making a ridiculously abstract argument, to which nobody posting here seems to be able to relate, including me. I haven't been suppressed. I talk about my political views and affiliations very publicly, and actively invite criticism from others, but so far I haven't been silenced by sinister forces, and I'm sure as hell not going to bitch and moan to a judge every time someone calls me a commie.

[Debs]

139. And when

Ann Coulter claims SHE is the victim because I call her a liar when she lies? Or when I point out that she is lying? Or that saying the way to talk to a liberal is after you beat them with a baseball bat is hatespeech? What happens when SHE says SHE is the vicitm?

[American Tragedy]

110. It appears that your premise has been rightfully rejected.

Personally, I am notoriously outspoken in public, and I richly enjoy the reactions that I receive, whether they are positive, negative, or outright hatred.

I certainly don't need the establishment to protect me from them. They are free to speak, and I in turn am free to respond.

[Spinoza]

116. Well said.

Got your back.

[American Tragedy]

112. Damn, looks like I killed another thread.

[thecai]

114. Up Until B*sh Stole The First Election

That hateful, hostile behavior was considered anti-social and dangerous. AFTER the first stolen election, B*sh has encouraged, rewarded, and exalted anti-social behavior and it has become the norm for his followers.
"A wise ruler scatters the wicked", but B*sh GATHERS.

[Spinoza]

121. Wooaah

Perhaps you are giving Bushie credit for a little too much influence and power over the rest of us? He may be destroying the country, but do you really think a single administration can turn millions of people into assholes and bullies? Can that really happen in 5 short years? Surely, even if we ARE more mean-spirited today than the past, (questionable) those trends must have begun decades ago, long before our current Emperor's reign.

[thecai]

133. Actually...

It began long before Bush, but yes, I DO give Bush the credit for causing this nation to become RIFE with hatred and hostility. He encouraged it continuously, repeatedly, constantly, by manipulating fear and anger in Americans. He never backed down ONCE, until Abu Ghraib was exposed.
Bush is a demagogue.
No other President in my lifetime has caused this much division.

[martymar64]

134. A good way to respond to the Hannitys Coulters and Limbaughs

Publish their home addresses and let people picket them at home. Give them not a minute of peace whenever they step out in public. I'm not advocating violence, but a good healthy dose of verbal abuse day in day out right in their faces. Follow them everywhere, like Chicken George back in 92

[Debs]

135. Even

Hitler and Stalin supported speech they agreed with. If people are saying mean things to you about your politics explain to them why they are wrong. If they are personally abusive, feel free, if it doesnt violate your ethics to get into the mud and return the favor. If I say the right is poisoning the dialogue with hatred and bigotry that could by your definition be construed as ME being a bully for fighting back. We all know the righwing had NO problem with double standards. Give them the weapons you are advocating and it wont get rid of the Limbuagh/Hannity/Coulter hydra. They will be defended as only telling the truth and the Rhodes' and Frankens of this world will be locked up

[Q]

141. Perhaps the word you're searching for is...

B R O W N S H I R T S...?

In Nazi Germany...the Brownshirts were used to intimidate, bully, threaten, demonize and beat up anyone who opposed Hitler's brutal rise to power, dicatorial rule and oppression of civil liberties.

Today's Brownshirts (dressed in Blue) are like those who showed up at public polling places in Florida to intimidate, bully, threaten, demonize and beat up public servants trying to complete a recount that would have put their opposition in power.

Limbaugh and his ilk are Media Brownshirts. Their 'job' is to make the opposition the scapegoats and enemies of the state...much like Jews and other minorities were treated in 1930s Germany.

It's appalling that the Brownshirts have their defenders even today.

[Just Me]

144. Yes,...the "brownshirts" certainly do have their defenders. I agree.

They have also completely misappropriated "free speech" in order to spread hatred and division.

[Freddie Stubbs]

142. Right-wing name calling? You're kidding, right

The left is just as bad as the right when it comes to name calling:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_qdr=all&q=whores+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com