Title: Free Speech on Freedom4um
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://none
Published: Aug 18, 2006
Author: Christine
Post Date: 2006-08-18 12:01:37 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 14438
Comments: 173

It is time for me to address the issue of "free speech" on Freedom4um. My free speech means that I have 100% control over what I say and everyone else has 0% control over what I say. Now, I understand that there are consequences to exercising my right to free speech, but I still retain 100% control.

Free speech means that I have a right to express or spew thoughts and words of preference, love, hate, or anything with which another may disagree. That said, the rules or policies of this forum, which is my private property (see this forum's Mission Statement), are that members can exercise free speech as long as they (1) do not make a specific threat against an identifiable person or target, (2) earnestly debate or discuss the relevant issues that are part and parcel of this forum's reason-to-be. Let me remind you that these are rules for this forum and, as such, do not necessarily apply off of this forum, as public laws should, in most cases, be even less restrictive than private property rules and regulations.

Again, free speech on this forum means that people can express their love or hatred for anyone, any group, any race, any culture, or any thing, as long as they adhere to the two contingencies listed above. Everyone else on this forum is similarly at liberty to exercise their free speech right to challenge, debate, argue, or agree with the ideas and speech of another.

We will not censor speech as we abhor political correctness and authoritarianism as well as those thought-control and speech-control tyrants who would restrict another's speech. Any limitation on thought and speech constitutes the first level of the destruction of all remaining rights. Afterall, the framers of the Constitution believed that free speech was the most fundamental right to be protected which was the reason that they placed it FIRST in the Bill of Rights.

I do not say this lightly, but anyone who cannot handle the content of another's speech may not be suitable for this forum. Such a person may be better suited for a forum whose moderators control and steer the forum's ideas and speech in a given direction.

Many people have no concept of what Free Speech and Freedom really mean. Do you?

What on Earth are you referring to? And by any chance, would you be B'rer Rabbit at LP as well?

"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country."

Indeed, TRUTH matters. That is the very reason for allowing 100% free speech. As soon as you censor speech, how do we know if and when the truth is being censored; and the bigger question is, WHO gets to decide what is truth and what is lie?

The beauty of the internet and of forums that do not censor speech is that everything is allowed to be stated -- the good, the bad, and the ugly; the lies and the truth. But at least it's all there. It is up to each individual to sort out the lies from the truth, objectivity from subjectivity, accuracy from inaccuracy, fact from fiction. That is true freedom.

It is up to the posters to expose the lies by documenting the truth, not by gagging the liar. Expose the liar for what he is. That's the real job of a free press and that should be the goal of the forum posters. For it to be any other way only permits an environment wherein the biases and agenda of the owners, moderators, or complaining posters become the only "truth" that is heard.

This is the very problem we have with the mainstream media. They censor, filter, and omit. How can the truth possibly be revealed with such practices and policies?

I would rather have all the views, opinions, positions, conclusions, etc. on the table, even if 99% are falsities and lies, than have any type of censorship. At least in that environment, I can search for and hopefully find the few nuggets of truth.

This from the pseudo-scientist who calls George Galloway a terrorist while posting on a forum whose owner refers to Palestinians as PALANIMALS?

I noticed that you've ignored me now twice.. how about explaining your insulting post....

That is what BrerRabbit says about Lebanese Villagers. I would imagine if you are him, the views concerning Islamic and Jewish people not being quite the same as yours' would be why the strange and vague opus here.

I knew it. The hubris and ego gave it away anyhow, I was just hoping to see the gasoline vapor that is this guy do another flash explosion again. Nutz, I never get to have any fun anymore (/teasing}

The boy, the political eunuch extraordinare, the legend in a very small and narrow mind, how will we live without it?

Well, we obviously disagree. I have no wish to wade through a sea of lies and bad manners to find a few nuggets of truth when it would be so easy to be rid of known, repeat-offender liars and those who indulge in personal attacks as argument. Of what value whatever is there in such tolerance?

A reasonable person might believe, for example, that Jews exert too much influence over American foreign policy and various domestic policies, but also grant without demur that Jews had contributed much to the economy, the sciences, and the arts. The details could be debated, but the position is not that of a Hater. The Hater in anti-Semitic form cannot go for ten minutes in private conversation without adverting with hostility to various crimes and conspiracies which he attributes to Jews, and can never concede that Jews every, however inadvertently, have done anything good. He is obsessive about it.

The point being of what positive value whatever are lies and hate? The caveat is, of course, that lies and hate cannot always be identified because they often shroud themselves in supposed fact. But so what? If in doubt, tolerate. If not, ban. It takes judgement and maturity, and if a few "mistakes" are made, so what? We deal in words only here, not actions.

How curious this thread is. While other forums utilize the dreaded purge, 4 achieves self exile by simply asserting that a constitutional right remains intact. My how far some would have us fall.

I know how Brother Bunnie thinks, and no doubt he saw an opportunity with Soda Pop's opus post to try to precipitate an flurry of similar opus posts. He has long been a suck up to Goldi and any harm he could do here he would love and consider it a feather in the traffic cone he wears on his pointy head as a cap.

Unfortunately for him, he is a Nerf ball that can never have that sort of effect in creating an avalanche. ;-D

I would disagree as to direction but I don't have much to add to what I said above.

He lives to promote conservative force in the upper levels of those who run and teach in colleges and universities. He is well educated, and has zero common sense or empathy with anyone not quite what he considers a peer.

Unfortunately for him, his education and job does not prevent him from having zero common sense or social ability. Hope this explains the little bro Bunnie for you better.

lets face it. the thing that bullies never do is stand and fight or argue sensibly. when confronted, they flee.

lacking the ability to stand and debate, they attack mindlessly and flee when confronted.

this is the essence of bully. they never challenge anyone who they fear will best them. instead, they flee with the false dignity of a prostitute who feels slighted because their no one was willing to pay their fee any longer.

I went to the park and saw this kid flying a kite. The kid was really excited. I don't know why, that's what they're supposed to do. Now if he had had a chair on the other end of that string, I would have been impressed. -Mitch Hedberg

Your thoughts have been expressed & noted, as is your right. You wouldn't have it any other way, right?

I, too, would prefer not to wade through a sea of lies. For example, that is exactly what I must do everytime I read my newspaper, or turn on the TV and watch the "news", or listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Barbara Walters, Dan Rather, etc. ad nauseum.

But, you see, rather than gag the gaggle of "repeat-offender liars" (as you say), I would rather have forums like this one, that you seem to tolerate, as well as other non-censored sites on the internet, to expose these liars and propagandists for what they are, by documenting the truth, rather than having to ask Phaedrus and his ilk about that which should be allowed or not allowed to be posted.

I admit I am deliberately being terrible here in that after long and involved debate and insult exchanges with him on LP, I know how to pull his strings and make his head explode.

I am taking advantage of his opus I must admit, but believe me, he's earned the roasting. You are better off without him, he meant this place no good anyway. You can take that to the bank.

Well, these are omnibus subjects but I'll make a few comments. Rush bills himself as entertainment first so verbosity and stimulation are his forte. I find him hard to take except in small doses and it's been years, I'm sure, since I listened at all. I "click through" O'Reilly and pay very little attention to the MSM -- they're about sensationalism and ratings almost exclusively. I appreciate Rush's and O'Reilly's exposure of leftist lies, along with that function performed by Ann Coulter. Ann goes "over the top" on occasion but so what? Without doubt, she exaggerates, which is an essential element of humor, but if you're suggesting that she is a pathological liar, then you are simply mistaken. The left has begged for these 3 people for decades. Now they have them. I'm both amused and pleased.

You realize, of course, that generally people say the truth as they see it... and many will use those very words when answering questions. Certainly Bill and Hill, or at least some of their relations did....I heard her mother say on more than one occasion, 'he/she answered with the truth as they see it'.

Each of us have to find truth for ourselves. Which is the truth sayer: John said the car is blue while Carol swore it was red?

As Freedom William indicated, one has to assimilate what is presented, chew it over, and determine which is correct.

In the example I provided you above, the police found that the car involved with hitting the pedestrian was painted blue on the left and red on the right.

See how the lens thru which you see things may well not be how I see those same things.

So tell me who is right...........the 'd' or the 'r', or the 'l' and the 'r' in this case? I'm sorry, I should be nice and say, 'you' or 'me' or 'the guy behind the tree' and the other is lying.

ANN COULTER

Ann Coulter: Vicious & Ignorant

Ann Coulter: Her Excuse
Ann Coulter: Her Column
Ann Coulter: Her Excuse Debunked
Ann Coulter: Her Ignorance

Ann Coulter's controversial statement in her column that "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" is not the least of Coulter's sins.

Ann Coulter: Her Excuse

Coulter claims that she wasn't speaking of all Muslims:

Coulter says her line about "convert them to Christianity" has been misconstrued and was aimed at those celebrating the attacks. "I wasn't talking about Muslims generally," she says. "I was talking about the crazed homicidal maniacs dancing in the streets."
[The Washington Post, October 2, 2001]

Ann Coulter: Her Column

Let's look at the full context in which Coulter made her infamous declaration:

Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
[="
" href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20010914.shtml">Town Hall, September 14, 2001]

A fair reading could be that Ann Coulter wasn't explicitly referring to all Muslims, but that the "they" referred back to those in the streets of Arab nations who were celebrating the World Trade Center attacks.

Coulter's statement as thus interpreted is, of course, still outrageous.

Ann Coulter: Her Excuse Debunked

While Coulter can maybe get away with parsing her own text here, I wonder if any commentators on this brouhaha have taken what Coulter said in her column together with what she said on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect September 25:

Ann Coulter: What's different about Germany than here, but I think is more similar to Japan and ought to be the model, is that Germany at least had a wealth of civilization prior to the Third Reich and it had a respect for human life, something that was not as noticeable in Japan. And one of the things General MacArthur did, he considered converting the emperor to Christianity. Decided not to because he thought there would be a fight between Catholics and Presbyterians. But General MacArthur called in thousands of Christian missionaries. He distributed thousands of Bibles. It wasn't as much of a success story as the Christian missionaries were in Korea after the Korean War, but you know how it was a success story? They have unprecedented religious freedom there, something that is absent in every Muslim country. In fact --
[="
" href="http://abc.go.com/primetime/politicallyincorrect/transcripts/transcript_20 010925.html">Transcript of Politically Incorrect, September 25, 2001, emphasis added]

This shows Coulter would like to apply her conversion concept to entire countries, such as she believes was done in Japan.

Ann Coulter: Her Ignorance

Moreover, Coulter, as the following dialogue, in relevant portions, makes clear, continues to put her foot in her mouth, with respect to her claims -- begun above -- that Arab countries have never had any "civilization," nor a history of tolerance for other religions: ("Jerry" is producer/journalist Jerry Nachman, and "Eric" is Eric Braeden, star of "The Young and the Restless."):

Eric: We have to allow the tolerant part of Islam to flourish. In other words, establish Democratic institutions and
then --

Ann Coulter: What tolerant part of Islam?

Eric: Islam has an enormous history.

Ann Coulter: Where is that in evidence in the Middle East right now?

Eric: Do you know anything about the history of the Middle East?

Bill: Islam was the most flourishing civilization in the middle ages. When Western Europeans were shivering and cowering and cast behind --

Ann Coulter: Fine, they invented the flying buttress, but they don't have a history of tolerance. That's the point --

Eric: She's absolutely wrong. Excuse me. You are wrong.

Ann Coulter: Well, then, name --

Eric: Historically, you are wrong. In all the Muslim countries, they allow Judaism to flourish and Christianity to flourish.

Ann Coulter: That's not true.

Eric: That is absolutely true.

Bill: Before --

Eric: In these kinds of countries right now, they don't. But in most Muslim countries in the past, they have allowed religious freedom.

Jerry: The Taliban is an exception, correct?

Eric: That's the problem.

Jerry: Ask any Jew who used to live in Iraq or Syria or Egypt until 20 or 30 years ago.

Ann Coulter's ignorance of history is amazing -- ignorance of the flourishing, advanced Arab civilization in the past, and of the religious tolerance toward Christianity and Judaism which was its hallmark.

Ann Coulter: not only vicious, but ignorant.

[I won't even address here Coulter's bloodthirsty analogizing to Germany in World War II in order to support her contention that we should carpet-bomb Afghanistan and not be concerned with civilian casualties. On the inappropriateness of Coulter's analogy, see Ann Coulter's Bombing Germany Analogy Not Applicable to Afghanistan.]

More on the War on Terrorism

UPDATE: In her book Slander -- indeed in most of what she writes and says -- Ann Coulter takes what sounds like the ill-tempered blustering of a barroom drunk and offers it as serious political commentary. But she's no barroom drunk. At least the barroom drunk would be embarrassed the next day and apologize for such remarks

LOL! Just turn on most any AM talk radio show for a rundown of Muslim conspiracies by Mike Streicher-Savage-Wiener and Co for that advertisement. Funny thing is they ignore the Zionist domination of media and government.

"We can make a natural alliance through the ownership of the great industries of the world and through the sharing of their profits." -Lord Charles Beresford, in a 1903 speech to the (Anglo-American-Jewish) Pilgrims Society.

well, at least whores are honest traders, so ethically, not morally,, but ethically speaking they are head and shoulders above political hacks.

morally they are still better off, because they are consistent within their professed beliefs. they are not hypocrites, but are true to their beliefs.

Why don't you just cut to the chase and list some of these so-called "known, repeat-offenders" you want Christine and Zipporah to ban, instead of whining like a little girl?

Go on, show us who these evil "liars and attackers" are that you feel need to be silenced.

Truth is an extremely difficult subject. Just because it's difficult does not reduce to that the truth varies from person to person or from day to day. Kinda basic. Some know truth better than others. But again, I've said what I came to say above.

The 3 of them certainly have helped in the destruction of the GOP, one of the goals of the NeoCommies.

Hate, my friend, is an appropriate emotion when directed at people who diligently work to usurp our freedom. We need more of it today, not less.

I have no interest in engaging in a food fight over Ann Coulter. A little balance and perspective is all that I ask.