»

[the_leander]

Blog-mob mentality punishes freedom of speech
Inside the First Amendment

By Paul K. McMasters
First Amendment Center
02.27.05

Take a stroll down Main Street USA and you’ll find people of all ages and persuasions putting on a veritable fashion parade of freedom. We don’t just practice free speech, we wear it.

T-shirts, caps, shoes, jackets, designer labels and the occasional tattoo boldly announce in word, design and color our choice, our message, our cause, our team – our Statement.

And when we take to the road, we do so in rolling billboards, vehicles festooned with bumper stickers, vanity plates and ribbons of every hue embracing every cause. We drive what we say.

Then there’s the Internet, where we really speak our minds. We have e-mail, instant messaging, chat rooms, personal Web pages and, now, our own newspaper/radio-TV station, the Web log or “blog.”

Full-throated expression is our style. We are America. Hear us roar!

Funny thing. For all of that celebration of free and fulsome speech for ourselves, many of us waste a lot of that precious commodity denying it to others. “America,” we say, “shut up!”

Full story, as ever here.

Before anyone complains "Oh this is just another anti American story, stop posting them and do something else" I would point out that the UK is also seeing many of the things described in this article, I would also suspect Canada of being similar also. I would argue that this article has a point that crosses all continents.

[PMC]

An Iranian blogger was recently given 15 years in jail.

Personally, I think blogging is a wonderful thing. It's allowing each of us to express ourselves in a new medium and can't be censored or watered down by third parties (yet). Freedom of speech and expression are fundamentals that we've never truly been able to experience until now. Long may it continue.

[cecilia]

excellent.
this is one of the reasons i HATE political correctness.

every wackjob identifies what they think is "wrong" or "bad" thoughts and all hell breaks out while they flamethrow the entire area to cleanse people's brains from them.

say goodbye to democracy.

Giving in to the speech mob means that discourse is diverted from the real issues to a sideshow on who is punished for uttering the ?wrong? ideas or words. Dissent is dead if it can be hounded out of the marketplace so effortlessly. Democracy is no match for demagoguery if good people won?t stand up to mob rule.

[Cymric]

@cecilia

Either I'm getting old and senile, or I just don't understand your reaction. Would you mind clarifying?

[cecilia]

Cymric wrote:
Would you mind clarifying?

i agree with the editorial. people should be able to have whatever ideas they like - without the fear that there lives will be ground up like meat.

even if those ideas are stupid.

i really do think the constitution allows people to have stupid, rude and silly ideas. and i think that's because the freedom to HAVE dumb ideas is more important that what those ideas are.

a long time ago, at the begining of my career, i went to get a job that had been suggested by my brother's friend. it was something very simple like mailroom stuff. too long ago to really recall.
anyway, the guy hiring was this old coot who after one look at me said something like "I don't hire girls".

ok, so this guy is an {Ashcroft}hole (I'm trying out my new dirty word here).

my brother's friend was really shocked, but even at that age, i was used to that kind of silly thinking. whatever, i figured, the guy is a loser and just lost the best employee he'll ever possibly get.
bye bye!

I just went on to find other employment.

now, if this was today and all those PC morons were to hear about this they would want to sue this guy to the stone age. and why? I say let nature take it's course. How successful do you think this guy can be when he can't appreciate a person's good qualities??? not very.

why waste everyone's time suing and basically giving money to scum lawyers? does justice get served? NO

I believe people should be free to express all their dumb ideas so we can see them for the morons they are and naturally avoid them.

these days, people don't actually SAY alot of sexist type comments, but the point is, they still THINK them. trust me. I've gotten very good at being able to tell how people think no matter what they actually say. the PC people have done no one any favors.
you can not control how a person feels and thinks - you just make that stuff go underground.

PC goes against free thought. it's wrong and should not be encouraged.

[Glaucus]

So what do you think about sexual advances? As it is now, a guy can't say anything interesting to a girl as it can be considered sexual harassment - a fireable offense.

- Mike

[cecilia]

Glaucus wrote:
So what do you think about sexual advances? As it is now, a guy can't say anything interesting to a girl as it can be considered sexual harassment - a fireable offense.

I think the reason i have never had any problems at work is entirely because of how I handle myself in a work environment.

1) I never talk about anything "personal". that is, i never use words like "boyfriend", "husband", "date", etc.
I don't believe men at work should be thinking too much about my private life.

2) i'm friendly, of course, but i do think i know how to be friendly without actually crossing the flirting line.

3) I talk about work and other such related topics, but if any mention of my family does happen it's usually my mother. and, knowing how guys think, there's no faster erection killer than talking about mom. This way i can explain some of my background (meaning my values) while not giving off the wrong vibes.

4) this may sound "sexist" to some people, but i am convinced that it is in fact the female person that can control these situation completely. Of course, i have the confidence needed to do so.

I think there are alot of wishy-washy females out there that just don't know how to handle themselves - or guys. so they fall back on this rediculous PC crap and lawyers, etc.

and don't assume that guys haven't made subtle (or in some cases, not so subtle) comments. it's just that I don't fly off the handle, have a heart attack or call the police.

I really don't think people TALKING is a federal offense. now, if someone touched me. well, then, i'd have to smack him in the nose. but THAT is crossing the line.

in other words, if a girl/women/female person can't handle being in an office or other work place, well, grow up or get out.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I disagree with you here, Cecilia.
Because Napoleon once said: "A newspaper can be more harmfull than a thousand guns"
A war does initially begin with gunfighting.
I think freedom of speech ends with spreading hatred.

[cecilia]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
I disagree with you here, Cecilia.
Because Napoleon once said: "A newspaper can be more harmfull than a thousand guns"
A war does initially begin with gunfighting.
I think freedom of speech ends with spreading hatred.

well, he also (supposedly) said "Women are nothing but machines for producing children."


actually i like this one better:
"It is the province of honest men to enlighten the government."

anyway, back to the point of Freedom of Speech. well, just because some people talk stupidly - like for example those delightful God Hates Fags family - doesn't mean we all have to believe what they say.
the real power of Freedom of Speech is that right after one of those nutcases says god sent the tsunomi to smote the "evil" people in asia is that I can turn around and tell them they are full of crap.

see, speel, if one person doesn't have Freedom of Speech, no one does. it has to be universal. otherwise, it's a sham.

you shouldn't be afraid of stupid people and the stupid things they say. because the fresh air of truth will blow away their stench.

be concerned about those who would silence anyone because they don't want to hear a potential bad word.

[metalman]

================================================== ================
A recent example is Hamilton College’s bitter experience with a controversial speaker. The private New York college offered a speaking engagement to Ward Churchill, a University of Colorado professor.

a blog-mob targeted CNN’s chief news executive, Eason Jordan. Questions about Eason’s questionable remarks about journalists’ deaths in Iraq were raised in the “blogosphere” and refused to go away until Jordan did.

================================================== ===============
An investigatio of Ward Churchill shows he has committed assault, copyright infringment, resume fraud, plagiarism, art fraud, and academic fraud.


His supporters are trying to turn Churchill's employment into a "free speech" issue, when this issue has gone way beyond any First Amendment rights.

No, Churchill should not be fired for what he said, but he should be fired and possibly jailed for the other offenses he's reportedly committed, which have been documented in the Colorado and national press.

Ward Churchill is a self-proclaimed former member of the Weather Underground, and is on tape teaching a man how to bomb Seattle or Wall Street, and yet he walks free.


Ward Churchill, the UC professor who infamously compared the dead of the World Trade Centers to "little Eichmanns" while extolling the gallantry of the "combat teams" who flew airplanes full of civilians into buildings full of civilians (as well as into the Pentagon).

Ward Churchill fraudulently claims to be an Indian, to emphasize his own anti-American agenda. He has used a life-long fabricated association with Indians to create a political career, which he otherwise could never have achieved. Churchill got his job at CU under Affirmative Action. In his case he claimed to be a Native American Indian to get the job of minority studies at University of Colorado.

Professor Ward Churchill broke copyright law by making a mirror image of an artist's work and selling it as his own. Place Churchill's work beside that of renowned artist Thomas E. Mails and the two are exact mirror images. But one is a copyrighted drawing by Mails. The other is an autographed print sold by Churchill




Eason Jordan

During remarks at the World Economic Forum January 28, 2005, in Switzerland, the now-former CNN executive Eason Jordan accused the U.S. military of deliberately targeting journalists in Iraq for murder.


Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others.



Michelle Malkin interviewed Senator Chris Dodd, Rep. Barney Frank, and David Gergen, all of whom attended the Davos forum and all of whom confirmed the remarks of Eason Jordan.

A first-person account surfaced of Jordan forcing a CNN reporter to read a prepared statement written by the Iraqi Information Ministry while representing it as a straightforward news piece by CNN in 1993.

There were two other instances of Jordan alleging the targeting of journalists for death by unspecified military forces, from 1993 (Somalia) and 2002 (Afghanistan).

Jordan had also accused the Israeli military of deliberately targeting journalists for death in October 2002 during a News Xchange Forum appearance overseas

The British newspaper the Guardian reported that Jordan told the global news executives assembled there that "Actions speak louder than words. The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces."


Jordan suddenly resigned his position at CNN around 6:00 p.m. on Friday, February 11.

THE ANNOUNCEMENT sent the national media into a scramble. No national news outlet had ever covered the story, which put them in the uncomfortable position of announcing the resignation of a major news executive over a two-week-old scandal about which they had not bothered to report.

When the Los Angeles Times reported on Jordan to its readers on Saturday (for the first time), it eliminated any reference to the other allegations he had made over the years. On Monday, the New York Times ran a background piece which focused on the dynamics of the blogswarm. By the time the weekend news cycles finished, the story was no longer about Jordan's unsubstantiated accusations against the U.S. military, but about out-of-control, bloodthirsty citizen-journalists.

>These are the two best examples of "Blog-mob mentality punishes freedom of speech"???

>Pretty lame argument by "Paul K. McMasters"

[metalman]

Ward Churchill does not feel free speech rights apply to others! Some "Free Speech Champion"




To me, it's highly ironic that a man with such "extreme" opinions -- even which can easily be perceived as advocating violence toward individuals -- cannot himself be tolerant of other's opinions, whether they be extreme or even "mainstream." Instead, Churchill prefers to pull the "Hate Speech" card -- say somebody else’s speech is offensive to your (assumed) ethnicity, gender, political status, etc., and effectively shut them up. After all, if they hate it, you can’t debate it.

What people should realize is that Ward Churchill is not a man who stands for their own academic freedom, the First Amendment, free speech, or anything of the kind.

My experience has shown that he ultimately aspires to be a demagogue, where criticism on him or his cronies would ultimately be considered "genocidal hate speech" with serious repercussions


Ward Churchill has been under fire ever since an essay he wrote in 2001 comparing the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to Nazis came to light.

Since then, many aspects of his career have been questioned Churchill's claim to Indian heritage has been disputed by Indian tribal leaders and he has been accused of sloppy scholarship and academic fraud.

Churchill has resigned his position as head of the Colorado University ethnic studies program but kept his $96,000 per year teaching post.

The CU regents have ordered a complete review of Ward Churchill's writings, and Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and others have demanded he be fired from CU.

[metalman]

Settlement negotiations between the University of Colorado and professor Ward Churchill stalled Friday because of renewed opposition by groups that want to see him fired even if it takes a court fight to make him go away.

Late Thursday, a settlement was all but done after lawyers for Churchill and the university agreed on financial terms. But when revelations arose Friday about a plagiarism complaint against Churchill, regents balked.

[McNorris]

@Metalman

Geez, Ward Churchill is a true Bolshevik thug!

He's like our Phriend Phred Phreakin' Phelps without a haircut... And maybe even a little more reactionary. What a dirt bag.

[metalman]

@McNorris

He's like our Phriend Phred Phreakin' Phelps without a haircut... And maybe even a little more reactionary. What a dirt bag.


>>He was one of the "TWO BEST" examples from the article

Blog-mob mentality punishes freedom of speech
Inside the First Amendment
By Paul K. McMasters
================================================== ============
when controversial speakers are shouted down or denied a forum, a democratic compact is disturbed. An opportunity for the speakers to clarify, refine, put in context or even disavow their remarks is lost
================================================== ===========

the difference is no one is writing articles claiming Fred Phelps "God Hates (*)" is being denied his Free Speech rights. Both are piles of cow dung, BUT people like the writer of the above article think Ward Churchill and his dog soldiers are some shining example of someone being discriminated against!

Ward Churchill claims he was descriminated against when he was a soldier in Vietnam. The other soldiers called him "Chief", and that left a "terrible scar" on his psyche. When the facts are checked, its found that he lied about being in being in Vietnam, the military, and being an Indian. But its the terrible Blog-Mob's that are punishing his freedom of speech by investigating what he says!