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: TimF who wrote (167935)	4/16/2003 3:39:31 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1594906

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. I disagree completely. How quiet do you think a very conservative Rep. audience would remain if I were to starting speaking of allowing abortions up til the third trimester and taking all the guns away from private citizens etc.? Not very quiet I can assure you. Part of free speech is objecting to the ideas and speech of others. And if you choose to walk into the opposition's camp......that you have to expect some serious objections. However, I think its too bad that some locations like apparently Berkely don't establish certain rules of decorum......I don't think burning anything is acceptable for an example. 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. Sorry, big difference between speaking and getting booed down, and not being allowed to speak at all. What do you mean his materal "was destroyed"? 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. Yes, but Robbins wasn't expected to speak. He was excluded because of views he had expressed in other venues. The H of F cancelled the Bull Durham not because they were afraid Robbins would say something anti war but because he said something anti war to someone else. I don't give a hoot if the H of F is private.....if it is at all..........its unAmerican to exclude someone from a key event becuase you don't like who he voted for for president. Some friends in San Diego just had the back window of their car smashed in because they were flying the peace flag just below the American flag. Great message being sent to their kids. And how is this any different from early 1930's Germany?. Frankly, its the conservatives who are noted for stopping dissent in this fashion, not the liberals. 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. The issues of slavery and affirmative action as presented by the people in your links can be very offensive to certain people just as talk of abortion can be offensive to conservatives. ___ 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. Sorry......I see nothing wrong with requiring boy scouts to wear civilian clothes as part the Olympic hosting activities. Besides, Salt Lake is a conservative area that would agree with all of the Boy Scout principles. As far as I can see, this was an issue of decorum, not principles. ted