When does political hate speech become domestic terrorism?

[Ivan Seeking]

False claims made by extreme right-wing players on the US political scene are designed to terrorize people. For example, how many false claims have been made about Obama; that he is a socialist, a communist, a terrorist, etc. He wants death panels. He want's to pull the plug on grandma. He is brainwashing our children. etc etc etc. We even find a "minister" who is praying for Obama to die and go to hell while openly admitting that he is trying to light a fire under his brainwashed congregation; one of which showed up to greet Obama with a loaded AK-47. Then we go back to the invasion of Iran and the claims that WMDs were a slam dunk and the strongly enforced suggestion that we were attacked by Saddam when there was no evidence to support that assertion.

Where does free speech end and domestic terrorism begin? We all know there is a line that cannot be crossed, and it doesn't only apply to yelling "fire" in crowded theaters. In my opinion, Palin, Limbaugh, Savage [who is banned from entry to the UK as a danger to society], Beck, and a number of others, esp from the talk radio scene, are essentially domestic terrorists.

 

[Choronzon]

False claims made by extreme right-wing players on the US political scene are designed to terrorize people. For example, how many false claims have been made about Obama; that he is a socialist, a communist, a terrorist, etc. He wants death panels. He want's to pull the plug on grandma. He is brainwashing our children. etc etc etc. We even find a "minister" who is praying for Obama to die and go to hell while openly admitting that he is trying to light a fire under his brainwashed congregation; one of which showed up to greet Obama with a loaded AK-47. Then we go back to the invasion of Iran and the claims that WMDs were a slam dunk and the strongly enforced suggestion that we were attacked by Saddam when there was no evidence to support that assertion.

Where does free speech end and domestic terrorism begin? We all know there is a line that cannot be crossed, and it doesn't only apply to yelling "fire" in crowded theaters. In my opinion, Palin, Limbaugh, Savage [who is banned from entry to the UK as a danger to society], Beck, and a number of others, esp from the talk radio scene, are essentially domestic terrorists.

Have you ever been to a country where the government can designate dissenters as "domestic terrorists"? I can only assume you haven't, unless you're the sort of pathetic human being who enjoys it when those who don't agree with him are led away by the police.

The United States is a country where even during a time of war a person can stand up and speak truth to power. That becomes entirely impossible when you allow those in power to determine what that truth is—there is good reason why libel laws don't apply to political figures in the same way it apples to private citizens.

Are you really so short-sighted that you can't understand that if you prosecute a tea-partier for "domestic terrorism" today, the next administration will simply imprison anti-war activists for the same charge? Or are you perhaps so foolish as to think that President Obama has just ushered in a new era of pseudo-liberal control of the American government that will last in perpetuity?

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

False claims made by extreme right-wing players on the US political scene are designed to terrorize people. For example, how many false claims have been made about Obama; that he is a socialist, a communist, a terrorist, etc. He wants death panels. He want's to pull the plug on grandma. He is brainwashing our children. etc etc etc. We even find a "minister" who is praying for Obama to die and go to hell while openly admitting that he is trying to light a fire under his brainwashed congregation; one of which showed up to greet Obama with a loaded AK-47. Then we go back to the invasion of Iran and the claims that WMDs were a slam dunk and the strongly enforced suggestion that we were attacked by Saddam when there was no evidence to support that assertion.

Where does free speech end and domestic terrorism begin? We all know there is a line that cannot be crossed, and it doesn't only apply to yelling "fire" in crowded theaters. In my opinion, Palin, Limbaugh, Savage [who is banned from entry to the UK as a danger to society], Beck, and a number of others, esp from the talk radio scene, are essentially domestic terrorists.

So Ivan would you like to be the pot or the kettle today. Is it ok only to call republican presidents names on the alphabet stations but when someone on the radio dose it he/she is a terrorist?

People have a ligament point that the Obama administration is sounding like a socialist government. The continued takeover of US banks (started by GWB), the takeover of GM, and now wanting to get a single pay option in health care. All of this supported by the taxpayers, sounds like socialism to me.

Also since you seem to listen to all of these conservative talk show hosts could you please tell me a direct quote where anyone of them have engaged in domestic terrorism? Also there is the case of Obama's good friend Bill Ayers the head of an actual domestic terrorism group.

As for Savage being banned from Britain it is because according the the UK home sectary office.

This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country.

Ms Smith told BBC Breakfast

So can we see on the list soon people like Bill Maher, Jessie Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, or even Howard Stern. They have all said things that could cause inter-community tension.

 

[Jasongreat]

Ivan, I can't believe that I am about to agree with a point in your post, well below your post. It is time for the republican party to be replaced with a real conservative party, in my HO I think the last conservative president we've had was calvin coolidge.
But as far as the rest is concerned pure hogwash.

 

[Wax]

If they can find out who started the false rumors then they could bring about law suits for defamation. Beck and Sean Hannity are all propaganda. They provide no real value in news other then to bash a president for ratings.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If they can find out who started the false rumors then they could bring about law suits for defamation.

Perhaps we can start with the people who called Bush a racist fascist nazi criminal?

 

[Jasongreat]

If they can find out who started the false rumors then they could bring about law suits for defamation. Beck and Sean Hannity are all propaganda. They provide no real value in news other then to bash a president for ratings.

First they would have to have sufficient proof the rumors were false and that they new they were false. Good luck with that the way obama's presidency is going so far. I think it would be far easier to charge Ivan with libel since he put his accusations, his name, and the accused all in the same post without a mentioning a shred of evidence. Can he proove the accusations or does he just feel it. But I don't hear any conservatives calling for that though. Thats the difference between conservatives and democrats, CONSERVATIVES believe in FREE SPEECH, democrats don't(unless it is themselves speaking).
So did oberman bring value when dissing bush, or was he going for ratings? A couple yrs. ago dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Its amazing how fast attitudes change when a Democrat gets in office.

 

[Wax]

First they would have to have sufficient proof the rumors were false and that they new they were false. Good luck with that the way obama's presidency is going so far. I think it would be far easier to charge Ivan with libel since he put his accusations, his name, and the accused all in the same post without a mentioning a shred of evidence. Can he proove the accusations or does he just feel it. But I don't hear any conservatives calling for that though. Thats the difference between conservatives and democrats, CONSERVATIVES believe in FREE SPEECH, democrats don't(unless it is themselves speaking).
So did oberman bring value when dissing bush, or was he going for ratings? A couple yrs. ago dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Its amazing how fast attitudes change when a Democrat gets in office.

Calling the president a Nazi that wants to create death panels are very clear indications of defamation. I don't see how you could argue against that.

 

[russ_watters]

False claims made by extreme right-wing players on the US political scene are designed to terrorize people.

In my opinion, Palin, Limbaugh, Savage [who is banned from entry to the UK as a danger to society], Beck, and a number of others, esp from the talk radio scene, are essentially domestic terrorists.

Ivan, this is just unvelievably absurd drivel here. You're a person who has attacked the very definition of the word "terrorism" in the past here. So this is really just a game to you, trying to use inflammatory words in a way that benefits you - this doesn't bear any resemblance to the definition of "terrorism".

But it is nice to see you say so plainly that you don't accept the concept of freedom of speech when the speech doesn't agree with your opinion! Such opinions as yours are the antithesis of what a "free society" is.

[edit] Heck, we can even turn this arround: You are advocating a point of view that suggests Obama should imprison his political enemies. That would put him in league with the likes of the typical dictator!

 

[kyleb]

Perhaps we can start with the people who called Bush a racist fascist nazi criminal?

Why start with them before the ones who get so much air-time?

Granted, we allow our government too much power over regulating speech already by my standards, but it would be nice if more people would vote with the wallets to stop sponsoring such madness. I've sworn off cable TV all together, simply because there is so much trash on it; not just the "news" programing, but the the vast majority of the "entertainment" too, and even much of the supposedly "educational" stuff.

 

[Jasongreat]

Calling the president a Nazi that wants to create death panels are very clear indications of defamation. I don't see how you could argue against that.

As soon as you round up all the people that called bush a nazi fascist, I will start to take this argument seriously. I haven't heard obama called a nazi, a socialist I've heard, but its kind of hard to argue your not a socialist when you are trying to socialize everything.
What happened to the old saying sticks and stones, how'd that end? Words will never hurt me. As long as we have a free press to refute the accusations there is nothing to worry about, unless you can't refute the accusations.

 

[russ_watters]

Thats the difference between conservatives and democrats, CONSERVATIVES believe in FREE SPEECH, democrats don't(unless it is themselves speaking).
So did oberman bring value when dissing bush, or was he going for ratings? A couple yrs. ago dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Its amazing how fast attitudes change when a Democrat gets in office.

Agreed. Democrats are ostensibly the party that believes in individual rights, but the reality is that they don't. Freedom of speech is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[kyleb]

I haven't heard obama called a nazi...

http://news.google.com/news?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=obama nazi".

 

[Choronzon]

Why start with them before the ones who get so much air-time?

Granted, we allow our government too much power over regulating speech already by my standards, but it would be nice if more people would vote with the wallets to stop sponsoring such madness. I've sworn off cable TV all together, simply because there is so much trash on it; not just from the "news" programing, but the the vast majority of the "entertainment" too, and even much of the supposedly "educational" stuff.

The fact that you "vote with your wallet" seems perfectly reasonable to me. If someone is really spouting absolute nonsense about those in power the only proper punishment should be the contempt of those around him. I don't care that half of Ivan's life seems to be his rants about the "rethuglicans" or "O'Reilly kills abortion doctors", as long as it's a private person expressing his opinion, no matter how childish I personally feel that opinion is.

The minute those like him succeed in using the power of the state to imprison his political enemies, then we will probably all remember why we have the Second Amendment.

 

[russ_watters]

Calling the president a Nazi that wants to create death panels are very clear indications of defamation. I don't see how you could argue against that.

You will see how here:

Defamation laws do not apply to politicians in the same way as they do to citizens. The standard is much tougher:

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3

But hey - if Obama feels defamed, he can always sue and see how it goes!

 

[Wax]

As soon as you round up all the people that called bush a nazi fascist, I will start to take this argument seriously. I haven't heard obama called a nazi, a socialist I've heard, but its kind of hard to argue your not a socialist when you are trying to socialize everything.
What happened to the old saying sticks and stones, how'd that end? Words will never hurt me. As long as we have a free press to refute the accusations there is nothing to worry about, unless you can't refute the accusations.

My answer was directly related to what Ivan was asking. I don't work for the Obama administration and I have no need or the money to pursue a timely defamation lawsuit. If the Obama administration really wanted to do something about Fox News then they could file defamation lawsuits. Plain and simple.

Obama was called a Nazi and a racists. Beck clearly started the racists comment and he could see a possible defamation lawsuit without the backing of Fox News lawyers.

 

[kyleb]

Agreed. Democrats are ostensibly the party that believes in individual rights, but the reality is that they don't. Freedom of speech is just the tip of the iceberg.

Sure, and Republicans believe in setting up "free speech zones" were people won't be heard, eh?

Such overgeneralization doesn't help anything, it only adds to the confusion.

 

[Jasongreat]

http://news.google.com/news?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=obama nazi".

The only time nazi was used is by the person writing the article. The header, and later down towards the bottom. His programs were compared to hitlers youth but he was never called a nazi. Besides who should have the most say in what their kids see, parents or the board of education?

 

[Choronzon]

Sure, and Republicans believe in setting up "free speech zones" were people won't be heard, eh?

Such overgeneralization doesn't help anything, it only adds to the confusion.

While I myself dislike First Amendment Zones, as they are more properly called, they just might be a necessary compromise. First of all, you don't have to enter a First Amendment Zone to exercise your right to free speech, but to exercise your rights to assemble in certain situations.

While I have to work hard to maintain objectivity, as I personally despise protesters, there needs to be some arrangements made so that people can exercise their rights in a particular place without depriving the rights of others.

Your right to protest an abortion clinic does not trump my right to enter one, or vice versa, and it's probably preferable to setting up areas for each as opposed to me having to knife-fight my way through a crowd or whatever.

So while Russ may have generalized unfairly, you just set up a straw man. Remember we are discussing the idea of labeling Americans domestic terrorists and imprisoning (I can only assume he meant imprisoning them, since he didn't state what we should do with these terrorists) them.

 

[Jasongreat]

Beck clearly started the racists comment and he could see a possible defamation lawsuit without the backing of Fox News lawyers.

I would say obama started the racist comments during the election, when he stated that the rebublicans were going to tell you to watch out for that obama guy, cause he doesn't look like all the other presidents, because he's not white. The only time I ever heard references to his color was his camp saying that the rebublicans said so. Although I've never heard a single sound byte to back it up.

 

[kyleb]

The only time nazi was used is by the person writing the article.

Hardly. There is plenty of quoting, here is a couple notable examples listed in the exscripts right there on the Google search page:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/6572072.html"
Inside were articles such as “Nazi Precedent for Obama Health Plan,” and “Obama's Nazi Doctors and Their 'Reforms.' ” Admittedly, the “magazine” was from ...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.pitts24aug24,0,5874342.story"
... up at protest rallies, a poster with a Hitler mustache drawn onto Obama's face and a pamphlet that says: "Act Now to Stop Obama's Nazi Health Plan! ..."

Granted, this is not suppsising when one considers FoxNews has Glen Beck even running stalk footage of Nazis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddZexeSYGoI".

 

[Jasongreat]

Hardly. There is plenty of quoting, here is a couple notable examples listed in the exscripts right there on the Google search page:


Granted, this is not suppsising when one considers FoxNews has Glen Beck even running stalk footage of Nazis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddZexeSYGoI".

So his programs are naziish, hard to refute that. Not one says obama is a nazi. By the way wasnt it a former obama camper that was found to have placed the pictures of him with a hitlerstache in CA? I guess he's just trying to ramp up the public discussion?

 

[Choronzon]

Hardly. There is plenty of quoting, here is a couple notable examples listed in the exscripts right there on the Google search page:Granted, this is not suppsising when one considers FoxNews has Glen Beck even running stalk footage of Nazis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddZexeSYGoI".

Those articles make very important points—that health care was nationalized in Nazi Germany as well. You might think that President Obama wouldn't abuse the massive powers that you are all willing to just hand him, but do you trust the next Republican administration with that same power?

Does it really seem so unlikely to you that ten or twenty years from now a conservative government's health service might decide not to provide treatment to AIDS patients who were infected through intravenous drug use or homosexual sex? There are many people in this country who would agree with such a policy.

If such a thing happens, when you're out protesting the "death panels", I want you to remember who gave them the power.

 

[kyleb]

So while Russ may have generalized unfairly, you just set up a straw man.

I'm not even going to touch you apologisim for limiting peoples right to protest to where they won't be heard as am not trying to drag the thread off topic, but I do have to take issue with your misuse of the term "strawman".

Remember we are discussing the idea of labeling Americans domestic terrorists and imprisoning (I can only assume he meant imprisoning them, since he didn't state what we should do with these terrorists) them.

I recall Russ doing a fine job of pointing out the fact that the term is being improperly applied here, and had moved on to addressing his and Jasongreat's overgeneralization of Democrats.

 

[Wax]

Those articles make very important points—that health care was nationalized in Nazi Germany as well. You might think that President Obama wouldn't abuse the massive powers that you are all willing to just hand him, but do you trust the next Republican administration with that same power?

Does it really seem so unlikely to you that ten or twenty years from now a conservative government's health service might decide not to provide treatment to AIDS patients who were infected through intravenous drug use or homosexual sex? There are many people in this country who would agree with such a policy.

If such a thing happens, when you're out protesting the "death panels", I want you to remember who gave them the power.

Canada, Europe, and Austria all have nationalized health care. They are the real Nazi!

 

[Choronzon]

Canada, Europe, and Austria all have nationalized health care. They are the real Nazi!

I never said they were Nazis, nor did I say that the current health care proponents were Nazis either, I merely said that the Nazi's had that power and obviously abused it. There may come a time when Canada abuses it as well. Governments change, and I'm not quite so naive as to thin humanity has out grown the sort of brutality that characterized the Nazis.

 

[kyleb]

So his programs are naziish, hard to refute that.

Those articles make very important points...

I'll let http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8#t=0m30s".

 

[Choronzon]

I'm not even going to touch you apologisim for limiting peoples right to protest to where they won't be heard as am not trying to drag the thread off topic, but I do have to take issue with your misuse of the term "strawman".

I recall Russ doing a fine job of pointing out the fact that the term is being improperly applied here, and had moved on to addressing his and Jasongreat's overgeneralization of Democrats.

So when Russ said that Democrat's are against free speech, what did that have to do with First Amendment Zones? In order to argue his point, why should he have to debate about First Amendment Zones—which are limits on assembly, not speech.

 

[kyleb]

So when Russ said that Democrat's are against free speech, what did that have to do with First Amendment Zones? In order to argue his point, why should he have to debate about First Amendment Zones—which are limits on assembly, not speech.

I did not ask him to debate about free speech zones. For an explanation of what I did, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy" .

 

[Choronzon]

I did not ask him to debate about Free speech zones. For an explanation of what I was did, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy" .

Then I was wrong, and I apologize.

 

[kyleb]

All good.

 

[Choronzon]

I'll let http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8#t=0m30s".

Now I listened to Representative Frank and he said something which I strongly disagree with. He called this current legislative effort an attempt "to increase health care."

Now, I admit I haven't read any of the bills in their entirety, but I have heard absolutely zero debate on "increasing health care," only redistributing it. Is there something in these bills that is meant to train more doctors, or build more clinics and hospitals?

The only thing I see is an attempt by government to take over control of health care.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, and Republicans believe in setting up "free speech zones" were people won't be heard, eh?

Does that contain a point?

Such overgeneralization doesn't help anything, it only adds to the confusion.

Not so. Liberals/democrats claim to be the party that most represents the rights of the people. It is perhaps the central point of their campaigning. The reality of their censorship is a huge contrast and stark hypocrisy. Pointing out this reality and getting people to see the hypocrisy for what it is is important.

Obama won the presidency because people hated Bush but also because people believed the things that he said. The trust pendulum swung toward the democrats in that election. But as soon as he got into power, we see the pendulum swinging back because only when you are in power can you fail to live up to the ideals you champion.

I consider this important because Ivan is not alone in being like this. This problem is extremely common among democrats. The generalization may have been overly broad and non-specific but the point is important: the point is that there is a lot of hypocrisy among democrats on this issue.

 

[russ_watters]

Hardly. There is plenty of quoting, here is a couple notable examples listed in the exscripts right there on the Google search page.

Please note that there is a difference between calling something a "nazi plan" and calling Obama himself a Nazi. The assertion made was that Obama himself was called a Nazi. Do you have any actual examples of that?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Why start with them before the ones who get so much air-time?

Plenty of famous people made rather disparaging comments about Bush on television and radio, many of them actors who could probably get a press conference going quicker than they could make the requisite phone calls most anyone else would have to make.

At any rate, I don't think people should be arrested or sued in either case. I just like to point out that both sides are hypocrites when it comes to freedom of speech. A couple short years ago you would hear liberals being called unamerican and unpatriotic for not supporting the conservative president and calling him names and making caricatures of him. And there was outrage from liberals who thought their right to free speech was being infringed. Now we have conservatives being called unamerican and racist for not supporting the liberal president and calling him names and making caricatures of him. And we have conservatives complaining about their right to free speech.

Its absurd. My two assistants should be arriving with my apparatus any day now.