For nearly a year and half since 9/11, people were criticized for disputing the president's decisions.
Criticism is not an infringement on freedom of speech. It is an example of freedom of speech.
Tim, I really appreciate your logic and willingness to remain open in these discussions but if you think that all criticism of someone else's comments is a reasonable exercise of free speech, then I think you are misleading yourself.
In Iraq when the gov't first fell, there usually would be someone in a crowd willing to speak out against Saddam. However, no sooner had he had voiced his criticism, then some one else would rail vigorously against the first person's comments. It was no surprise that the first person shout up very quickly. Behind the second person's response was thinly veiled threat. This happened time after time after time.......if not a bad example of freedom of speech, its certainly a poor one.
We live in a free nation........for the most part. However, there are any number of stories where citizens of this country have had their rights abridged; where they have been held in detention or even injured, tortured and/or killed by authorities. We all know its possible under the right circumstances that our freedoms can be expunged and our lives endangered, and that even if we have the right to sue later, that won't mean much if we are dead.
So when you say criticism of the minority by the majority is simply an exercise in free speech, a reasonable one at that, that's not my take at all. As a member of a minority who opposes many of Bush's actions, I felt a great deal of intimidation saying what I wanted to say for a period of nearly a year after 9/11. It became fairly ugly on this thread and in other arenas during that time. Even now, I am not entirely comfortable with voicing my opinion........and I know for sure I am not the only one who felt this way.
If you dared to criticize the president himself, then attempts were made to severely censor the party or parties who were responsible......see Dixie Chicks as a recent example.
The Dixie Chicks did not face censorship. Censorship is when someone doesn't let you say something, not when they don't like you because you say it.
I said informal censorship. The DC were free to do the physical act of speaking but it was made very clear to them that there would be serious consequences.........not just financial ones but that their lives and the lives of their families were in danger. That is not what is considered an uncensored environment nor what is meant when we say one has the right to freedom of speech. Endangering one's life should not be the consequence of speaking your mind.
Another example.....at one point last fall, FOX or another conservative outlet complained that the Seattle area was not flying enough American flags. How they came to this conclusion....it certainly had to be anecdotal...is beyond me but the message was very clear. Not enough flags means you are not patriotic enough. Now how do you think that differs from other nations with more restricted freedoms?
It doesn't just differ, it doesn't have any similarity at all. It would only be a limit on freedom of speech if people where arrested or physically attacked or fined or something like that for not having flags or being patriotic enough. Saying "people are not patriotic enough" is an exercise of freedom of speech, not a restriction on it.
Condemning someone else's behavior may be an example of freedom of speech. However, its intent is to restrict another person's freedoms. Frankly, I don't think our founding fathers devised the Bill of Rights so that we could use those rights or freedoms to abridge the rights or freedoms of others.
I recently read excerpts from a book written by a conservative.....I don't remember the title nor the author.....but he complained that people were taking too much advantage of free speech and that our right to demonstrate or speak out against the gov't should be curtailed.
Even that isn't an example of censorship itself, but it is an example of advocating censorship. In other words its supporting restrictions on speech but doesn't mean that speech has been restricted.
Conservatives are in a position of power that we have not seen for nearly 100 years. They are in the position of passing new laws that could well lead to major changes in our lives. Many of them share the views expressed by this author. To those of us who are not conservatives, its not inconceivable that new laws could be passed placing restrictions on some of our freedoms.
Its for that reason your quibbling over fine points sounds a bit irresponsible to me and beside the point.
Such advocacy is nothing new and doesn't have enough strength behind it to get anyware. It won't even become a bill let alone a law and the courts would reject any such law even if it could get passed.
You don't know that. You may be right but you certainly can not guarantee it.
Re. your comments above, I don't agree with people who burn the flag but I defend their right to do so.
I feel the same way. I didn't say that infringing on his right to do so was good, I only said it isn't even remotely enough to reasonably throw Hitler comparisons around. Some western European countries have similar or worse restrictions on free speech and while I think these restrictions are bad no one is saying countries like France or modern Germany are likely candidates for Nazi governments.
Then why do you think these comparisons are being made?
All I am suggesting that people have hidden agendas and because its become politically incorrect to say certain things in public, they are very careful to keep those things from the public eye.
You suggest a lot more then that when you say people are like Hitler. If you didn't make that comment and just say something like "we should always be vigilant about our government and in defense of our rights then I would agree.
Using the name of Hitler is maybe a poor attempt at getting the point across. Dropping his name, however, doesn't change the underlying fear.
but I do believe that many conservatives have strong nationalistic feelings much like Hitler. Hitler believed to protect Germany it may be necessary to be the aggressor......apparently many conservatives believe the same thing. Do you disagree?
I would say its more patriotism then nationalism. The difference being that there is no overtone of racial superiority. But I'll admit that that the practical effect of extreme patriotism is little different from that of strong nationalism in many cases.
And understand, it was Hitler's nationalism that eventually led him to his feelings of racial superiority. First came the nationalism, then the more negative stuff like racism. Its why today the Germans don't encourage nationalism at all.......they see it as a danger to the well being of their nation.
Its why I grow very uncomfortable with the current level of this nation's nationalism/patriotism. This all consuming hate of all things French is very overdone and unnecessary. There are many of us who don't particularly like the French
and don't always agree with their politics, but don't feel its necessary to bash everything French or to even boycott their products.
Besides, there were other nations that stood with the French but its the French who are are being set up as whipping boys. Its like an irrational crowd attacking someone else in the crowd and killing him........there is a frenzy to it that makes me uncomfortable.
Hitler believed lots of things. Finding one aspect of similarity doesn't make for a good reason to compare a group of modern day Americans to Hitler. I do think that sometimes aggressive action is the best thing to do, but not most of the time. I would say that it should not be a common occurrence.
Remember, Hitler was seriously fukked up but conservative values are what shaped him
No hatred was what shaped him.
I don't agree........I think it was nationalism and arrogance that shaped him and brought the hate to the surface.
You say that only because you are quick to make the leap that I am calling Bush another Hitler.
I wasn't sure if you where calling Bush another Hitler or not but your calling any large number of conservatives or administration officials like Hitler is enough in my opinion to question your sense of proportion in this area.
Jerry Falwell and other far right, fundamentalist conservatives.
Well at least I got one name. I'm not a fan of Falwell but I don't think he resembles Hitler at all. Hitler was focused on nationalism and racial hatred, Falwell is focused on religion (if you want a negative comparison you could try the Ayatollahs in Iran but I still think that isn't accurate, just better then the Hitler comparison). Hitler supported violence against internal dissent or groups that he didn't like, Falwell does not.
I guess I was comparing evil to evil. I see Falwell and others like him as the same kind of evil as Hitler. I also see them as dangerous to the well being of this nation.....and I think that's the salient point.
I think its the height of hypocrisy to claim you are good and democratic, and then for years, support an evil dictator like Saddam........and then, even later claim its necessary to take him out.
We gave a lot more to Stalin (who was worse then Saddam) then we ever gave to Saddam. To claim you are good and then support someone who is bad (Stalin, Saddam, whoever) might have an element of hypocrisy but its often well intentioned (we didn't want Hitler to conquer Europe or Iran to conquer the Gulf). Claiming its necessary to take down someone you have previously supported is not necessarily even false let alone hypocritical.>
We didn't want Hitler to take over Europe AND us. That's quite a bit different than fearing that a nation will take over another region and supporting a known tyrant to prevent it from happening.
Bush and the supporters behind him......the Perles, Wolfowitz, etc......see a more aggressive role for the US. Typically, aggressors tend to be bullies like Hitler.......they prey on weaker nations. That's why people see analogies between Bush's and Hitler's behavior.
The US isn't preying on weaker nations, and Perle and Wolfowitz have not to my knowledge advocated that it should do so.
Then what do you call it?
Instead of condemning people for implying Bush is Hitler like, why not try to figure out why they are saying it? We were told repeatedly that Iraq was a threat to the US because it had WMD and links to al Qaeda. At that time, there was very little concern for the "poor, enslaved Iraqis". Six months later there is no WMD nor links to al Qaeda. Why are you not asking questions instead of being so concerned with negative comments re Bush? I would hope that we are Americans first, and liberals, conservatives, Dems and Reps. second.
If that is your reason for the Hitler comment its a real weak one. The links to terrorism where not strong enough to justify an invasion but they did exist. The WMD is known to have existed, its possible that Saddam destroyed it and then wiped out all records and evidence of the destruction and didn't make any effort to show that it was destroyed in order to prevent moves against him but it seems very unlikely. Whatever Bush's motives, freeing 24mil people from Saddam and removing a threat
to the biggest oil producing region of the world are both good things.
Again.....if your reasoning above is correct, then why the comparisons? And before you answer, its more than partisan gamesmanship.
ted |
