This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
When Does Free Speech Cross the Line?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Apparently they picked up some tricks from Sarah Palin and the whole "crosshairs on Gabrielle Giffords" fiasco.
Actually, the crosshairs were on states, right before an election. Those were the target states for influence during the election. Also, there were a handful of them in the picture. And I don't even think it was Gifford's position that was trying to be influenced by that election. That's a far cry from a crosshair painted on someone's head. Try to keep things reasonable, here.
Post by
xaratherus
Apparently they picked up some tricks from Sarah Palin and the whole "crosshairs on Gabrielle Giffords" fiasco.
Actually, the crosshairs were on states, right before an election. Those were the target states for influence during the election. Also, there were a handful of them in the picture.
And I don't even think it was Gifford's position that was trying to be influenced by that election.
That's a far cry from a crosshair painted on someone's head. Try to keep things reasonable, here.
Response to bolded.
It was very much Gifford's position that was in question. And the graphic indicated as much
The map graphic in question indicated the state by placing a crosshair on it in the general area of the representative's district, and below had a legend specifying which representative was "in sights". You can see the original image
here
, although it's long since been pulled from Palin's PAC site.
Now, note that I don't think the graphic had anything to do with the actual shooting. Loughner is a disturbed individual who had a history with Giffords before the incident. But I can't say that for sure. I do know that symbols often have more power than we intend them to have, and I do think that graphic - and the ad I mentioned in New York - are just two more indications that people fail to think through the possible unintended consequences of their actions and words.
Post by
MyTie
Apparently they picked up some tricks from Sarah Palin and the whole "crosshairs on Gabrielle Giffords" fiasco.
Actually, the crosshairs were on states, right before an election. Those were the target states for influence during the election. Also, there were a handful of them in the picture.
And I don't even think it was Gifford's position that was trying to be influenced by that election.
That's a far cry from a crosshair painted on someone's head. Try to keep things reasonable, here.
Response to bolded.
It was very much Gifford's position that was in question. And the graphic indicated as much
The map graphic in question indicated the state by placing a crosshair on it in the general area of the representative's district, and below had a legend specifying which representative was "in sights". You can see the original image
here
, although it's long since been pulled from Palin's PAC site.
Now, note that I don't think the graphic had anything to do with the actual shooting. Loughner is a disturbed individual who had a history with Giffords before the incident. But I can't say that for sure. I do know that symbols often have more power than we intend them to have, and I do think that graphic - and the ad I mentioned in New York - are just two more indications that people fail to think through the possible unintended consequences of their actions and words.
This is a much better representation of what happened than your original interpretation.
Edit: The link you provided not only shows the picture, but has an extreme and false representation of what happened. It makes it sound like Palin loaded the gun for the shooter.
Post by
Magician22773
** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on AIG: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to Democrats in Congress: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We need to talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would require “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to liberal supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
It should also be noted, that Loughner was a self-proclaimed Marxist, so it would be highly doubtful that Sarah Palin would have been much of an influence on him, and that he had a history of issues with Giffords going back to as early as 2008, long before Palin was in the spotlight.
Post by
gamerunknown
I was going to say, political speech is often highly polemic and full of sporting analogies and phrases like "I'm gunning for you". The intention was probably just to play up her role as a tough, moose shooting, goal oriented woman for the NRA members that may support her campaign and the Giffords shooting was an unfortunate demonstration of why one should aim for neutral speech and graphics. Oh and don't pose in front of a sign that says "Victory in Ohio" before the votes have been counted.
I don't think she'd ever be found culpable in a court at any rate.
Post by
xaratherus
This is a much better representation of what happened than your original interpretation.
I'm not sure what you mean by my "original interpretation". I compared a fairly well-known political occurrence to a similar occurrence that I felt pertains to the topic of free speech. The detail I just provided didn't change what I said originally at all. At best it filled in a knowledge gap; I didn't provide it to begin with because I assumed that A) either people would already know about it, B) people would do some searching if they didn't understand it, or C) people would ask politely for clarification.
Of course, C isn't really what I got, but nonetheless.
Edit: The link you provided not only shows the picture, but has an extreme and false representation of what happened. It makes it sound like Palin loaded the gun for the shooter.
I googled "Palin Giffords image", and that was the first page that came up for me. There are other pages that host the graphic as well though. Not surprisingly, most of them have a leftist stance on the issue as far as I can tell; it wouldn't make sense for a lot of conservative blogs to leave it up there since it was mostly negative press for them, correct or not.
I was going to say, political speech is often highly polemic and full of sporting analogies and phrases like "I'm gunning for you". The intention was probably just to play up her role as a tough, moose shooting, goal oriented woman for the NRA members that may support her campaign and the Giffords shooting was an unfortunate demonstration of why one should aim for neutral speech and graphics.
Basically what I said on the last page. I don't think Palin's image really had anything to do with Loughner's actions, but if you don't want people drawing correlations then why not think about it first and then try to avoid obvious actions that will put you in the path of "pop" correlations in the first place?
The whole reason for bringing this up was to point out that if something violent should happen to Mark Grisanti, there
will
be a media backlash against NOM for the billboard I mentioned.
Post by
MyTie
I was going to say, political speech is often highly polemic and full of sporting analogies and phrases like "I'm gunning for you". The intention was probably just to play up her role as a tough, moose shooting, goal oriented woman for the NRA members that may support her campaign and the Giffords shooting was an unfortunate demonstration of why one should aim for neutral speech and graphics. Oh and don't pose in front of a sign that says "Victory in Ohio" before the votes have been counted.
I don't think she'd ever be found culpable in a court at any rate.Is there reason to think that her poster was a motive for the shooter?
Post by
xaratherus
I was going to say, political speech is often highly polemic and full of sporting analogies and phrases like "I'm gunning for you". The intention was probably just to play up her role as a tough, moose shooting, goal oriented woman for the NRA members that may support her campaign and the Giffords shooting was an unfortunate demonstration of why one should aim for neutral speech and graphics. Oh and don't pose in front of a sign that says "Victory in Ohio" before the votes have been counted.
I don't think she'd ever be found culpable in a court at any rate.Is there reason to think that her poster was a motive for the shooter?
Perhaps because a segment of the American population views the political philosophies of the opposing party not as simply problematic, but actually dangerous to the well-being of themselves, the country, and (by rather arrogant extension) the species as a whole? And so when they view the other side as "the enemy" they will look for reasons to vilify them.
The media didn't help, of course - but it has no reason to do so, since sensationalism sells.
I'm not saying this sort of political polarization is wise or healthy - just pointing out that I've seen it myself (and experienced its rather virulent backlash personally).
Post by
gamerunknown
To clarify, I meant people wont make the correlation to an essentially unrelated event should one avoid, ehm... colourful imagery and language. Of course, one has the opportunity to weighh up the benefits and costs of using such language, which is preferable to not having that choice.
Gosh, I almost used the phrase "extreme imagery", which I hate precisely because it's used as an excuse for censorship.
Post by
MyTie
Is there reason to think that her poster was a motive for the shooter?
Perhaps because a segment of the American population views the political philosophies of the opposing party not as simply problematic, but actually dangerous to the well-being of themselves, the country, and (by rather arrogant extension) the species as a whole? And so when they view the other side as "the enemy" they will look for reasons to vilify them.
The media didn't help, of course - but it has no reason to do so, since sensationalism sells.
I'm not saying this sort of political polarization is wise or healthy - just pointing out that I've seen it myself (and experienced its rather virulent backlash personally).
I see liberalism, not simply as problematic, but actually dangerous, to the well-being of myself, my country, and the entire world. Look at the economies of Europe. Look at the devastating effects liberalism has had on our own economy.
Now, just because I have these views, I don't see people as my enemy. I will not try to vilify anyone, and I certainly won't pick up a gun and try to shoot anyone.
I guess what I am saying is that disagreeing with a group of the populace, even to the point of thinking that they are dangerous, isn't motive to shoot people. So, I disagree with you. Can you think of any other logic to reason that the poster was a motive for the shooter?
It seems to me that in a rush to smear Palin, the media took this stupid map and ran around explaining that Palin wanted people shot. Ridiculous, needless to say, but gave a lot of face time to their idea that Palin wants people to get shot, when that obviously wasn't her intent. Then, when someone DID get shot, they again used this as an opportunity to smear Palin. It did nothing in my mind but draw my sympathy for Palin, and Giffords.
The media has done the same rabid attack dog smear campaign against every conservative to stand up for their beliefs. Look at this hunting spot with the racist name owned by Perry. Yet another non-story trumped up as something. I don't root for Perry. I don't root for Palin. But I have enough common sense to tell when the media is being idiotic.
Post by
gamerunknown
Look at the economies of Europe
Which? Norway's?
Post by
MyTie
Look at the economies of Europe
Which? Norway's?
I love the exception to the rule. That's great! Take away all of Norway's oil exports and it would look more like Greece.
Post by
xaratherus
Is there reason to think that her poster was a motive for the shooter?
Perhaps because a segment of the American population views the political philosophies of the opposing party not as simply problematic, but actually dangerous to the well-being of themselves, the country, and (by rather arrogant extension) the species as a whole? And so when they view the other side as "the enemy" they will look for reasons to vilify them.
The media didn't help, of course - but it has no reason to do so, since sensationalism sells.
I'm not saying this sort of political polarization is wise or healthy - just pointing out that I've seen it myself (and experienced its rather virulent backlash personally).
I see liberalism, not simply as problematic, but actually dangerous, to the well-being of myself, my country, and the entire world. Look at the economies of Europe. Look at the devastating effects liberalism has had on our own economy.
As someone who tends to hold more liberal views than conservative, I would disagree with you that "liberalism...has had a devastating effect on our own economy". I think that's placing a whole lot of blame on a particular political philosophy without showing near clear enough causation to make the statement valid. It's gross oversimplification, and in a way, it's vilification because you happen to oppose that sort of philosophy. Which is ironic since in a latter paragraph you say that you don't vilify people.
Now, just because I have these views, I don't see people as my enemy. I will not try to vilify anyone, and I certainly won't pick up a gun and try to shoot anyone.
I guess what I am saying is that disagreeing with a group of the populace, even to the point of thinking that they are dangerous, isn't motive to shoot people. So, I disagree with you. Can you think of any other logic to reason that the poster was a motive for the shooter?
But the entire reason why it wouldn't motivate you to shoot anyone is exactly because you are not as extreme as the people who
might
see it as justification to shoot someone. You disagree with me based on the fact that
you
wouldn't take those actions with the poster as a justification, and then seem to propose that because it wouldn't make you do it, it couldn't make anyone else do it.
In other words, you propose that such imagery wouldn't result in a sane individual taking that extreme action of killing someone - and that's true. But not everyone is sane.
Post by
gamerunknown
Take away all of Norway's oil exports and it would look more like Greece.
Still makes the top 22 countries by human development, along with 13 other European countries. Besides, it seems that nowadays if a developed country does not have sufficient oil reserves it must annex a country that does.
Post by
asakawa
The thread is meandering further away from the topic here.
Personally I'm a strong believer in absolute freedom of speech. I think it's incredibly important to be able to freely question everything. This is a hard ideal to stick to but the alternative leads to some very dark places.
I also think that everyone is responsible for their own actions. Are the Beatles responsible for Charles Manson's crimes because the White Album inspired him to do them? Many examples have been given in this thread of instances where freedom of speech ought to be limited and I disagree with all of them.
Crime should be punished (including the taking advantage of those with limited capability to comprehend and take responsibility for actions) but speech should be free. People should be free to say whatever they wish and I should be free to disagree.
Post by
gamerunknown
Crime should be punished (including the taking advantage of those with limited capability to comprehend and take responsibility for actions) but speech should be free. People should be free to say whatever they wish and I should be free to disagree.
To take the argument to its absolute limits (as I've argued on libertarian forums before), would you prosecute a general that ordered war crimes to be committed but that has never actually fired a weapon nor pushed a button nor performed any action that lead to the injury (other than speech) of another human in their life?
Post by
Magician22773
Crime should be punished (including the taking advantage of those with limited capability to comprehend and take responsibility for actions) but speech should be free. People should be free to say whatever they wish and I should be free to disagree.
To take the argument to its absolute limits (as I've argued on libertarian forums before), would you prosecute a general that ordered war crimes to be committed but that has never actually fired a weapon nor pushed a button nor performed any action that lead to the injury (other than speech) of another human in their life?
Charles Manson would be interested in having you on his jury. There is no evidence, nor indication that Manson ever actually killed anyone, only "ordered" that his followers commit murder.
Post by
gamerunknown
Charles Manson would be interested in having you on his jury. There is no evidence, nor indication that Manson ever actually killed anyone, only "ordered" that his followers commit murder.
Well in the case of the general, Manson, people that hire assassins and those that announce intention to murder or grievously injure someone (depending on capacity and context) I think that they should all be prosecuted. The onus is on those who believe absolutely or not at all in free speech to deal with these absolute scenarios, the rest of us can draw lines in the sand.
Post by
asakawa
I recognise the massive problems that come with my belief in absolute freedom of speech. I also believe that
all
wars are crimes but I recognise that this belief doesn't help much when your country is invaded.
I'm not especially interested in convincing others of my point of view and I
certainly
don't have all the answers to making it a practical and practicable way to run a country. I do, though, think it's a good ideal for which humans should strive and wanted to share my opinion (in part to drag the discussion back on topic ^_^).
I don't know nearly enough about Charles Manson to comment on specifics (I'm a Brit so he's not really in the public consciousness as more than just a name), I just know that he credited the White Album as inspiration and thought it made a decent example of a time when someone's words (and/or artistic expression) have caused others to commit crimes without that intention being there on the part of the progenitor.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.