Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (167917)	4/16/2003 1:11:04 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1594764

I see.......you want others to restrict their right to free speech so that someone like Flynn can say whatever bs comes to his mouth. Not at all. Shouting someone down is not exercising free speech. Its restricting free speech. A demonstration outside of the hall, or a second speech denouncing the first speaker is entirely appropriate. Shutting people up with threats, tearing up and/or burning their written material, or shouting them down so no one can hear them are not appropriate and don't facilitate communication and exchange of ideas. And even if it was appropriate it would show more intolerance then anything the Hall of Fame did. Intolerance would be not to let him speak at all. With many speakers that is what they in effect get. If you destroy their material, threaten them and shout them down then they can't effectively communicate. Also many of the institutions don't make any serious effort to reign in the protests or protect the forum and the speaker. What do you mean his materal "was torn down and burned"? "After Flynn was compelled to halt the program, demonstrators removed the remaining copies of his monograph that he had on display, Cop Killer: How Mumia Abu-Jamal Conned Millions Into Believing He Was Framed, which they then used as bonfire material. " academia.org Its a matter of perception..........from my perspective, his premise is offensive. And from the perspective of the people making the decision at the hall of fame the actor they excluded had made offensive statements. But the HOF isn't a government institution nor is it an institution that in theory is supposed to exist to facilitate the free exchange of information and ideas. Reality has moved further and further from that theory as this type of thing has become more common. Also are you saying that calling a convicted murderer a murderer is offensive? That's why he was doing and that is what he was attacked for. Or perhaps your not referring to Flynn. The other issues where making arguments against reparations for slavery, or opposing the idea of affirmative action. Do you consider those ideas not just wrong, or even dangerously wrong but offensive, and so offensive that they should be shouted down excluded and censored? Such thoughts are worthy of ridicule, but even they are not worthy of censorship. If you wanted to make a speech about them then you shouldn't be shouted down or threatened, instead you words should get a strong response, either outside of where you are giving your speech or before or after your speak. ___ Tim, you are getting a desperate to make your point. The guy is ten years the senior of the people he's debating... Not of many of them in fact he would be 10 years older then only a few % of them. Some of them might be 8 or 9 years younger, some of them would be his age or older. And if the youngest of them, the 18 and 19 year olds, are going to act like more violent versions of a 5 year old throwing a tantrum then perhaps they should be treated as such. If they are old enough to be responsible for their actions then they should be held responsible. If they are not old enough to be responsible for their behavior then they shouldn't be out in public without someone to watch them who will be responsible for their behavior. Its somewhat understandable that younger people might act up more but even if you let them slide because of their youth and don't punish them in anway it doesn't change the fact that what they did amounts to a sterling example of liberal intolerence. If they were, they shouldn't have been. They Olympics are not about promoting a particular group, they're about promoting the host nation. The boy scouts are being prigs over this issue. Boy scouts wearing their uniforms doesn't get in the way of promoting the host nation. It even is a good part of such a promotion. Complaining about the scouts wearing their uniform and forbiding them from doing so at the Olympics is being priggish if anything in this situation is. Tim