This is the closest I can find to a root post of Christopher's:
Message 16517576
Absolutely.
There's all this negative posting about "patriots" as though they were somehow not entitled to the same free speech rights at the right thinkers.
For example, Message 16516453
Very sad that the "true patriots" actually had the gall to think they had free speech rights.
Or when a poster writes: "As far as I'm concerned these are knee-jerk "patriots" who don't understand the Bill of
Rights."
As though "patriots" don't have their own free speech rights under the Bill of Rights.
I frankly find more tolerance of dissent by "patriots" on this thread than I find tolerance of the views of "patriots" by -- well, I guess one can only say non-"patriots." Or at least certain ones.
What's interesting to me is that for all this morning's knee-jerk springing to the defense of X, she did not appear in the least concerned last night about muzzling the free speech rights of those questioning the views she was representing. I give her credit for that. It was a healthy give and take, and within the context of past discussions here and the "no gloves" philosophy of the thread, remarkably civil.
It links to this post of Poet's:
I see all the "true patriots" stepped out for a cyber pogrom last night. And are still slapping backs this morning. Very sad.
While I can find nothing that implies, to me, a direct insult to our men in uniform, I think I can see what happened. By insulting those who have an uncomplicated patriotism, it could easily be taken as an insult of those who find their vocation in defending the country. After all, the sort of people who tend to wear uniforms, as firefighters, cops, soldiers, and sailors, also tend to despise those who put the word "patriots" in scare quotes.
As far as I can see, Poet was not thinking so broadly, but was merely angry at those who might impugn the patriotism of dissenters with a blanket condemnation. However, I can see how Christopher might have interpreted her comments along these lines as having a negative implication about those who are not critical, but do their duty, often at great personal risk. I can also see why he did not want to offer substantiation: who wants to get into an interminable discussion about whether or not the implication was intended?
I have no particular knowledge of the alleged harrassment, and therefore do not mean a blanket defense. I also think that Christopher is mistaken in his inference. However, I think that his interpretation has some plausibility, depending upon how strong one takes the negative reference to "patriots" to be....... |
