January 19, 2011

"I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death..."

"... unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country."

97 comments:

TMink said...

Now opinions are dangerous? I would rather deal with opinions than fists any day.

Trey

edutcher said...

OK, who gets to decide what opinions "imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law"?

PS Trey, don't forget Holmes was a Civil War vet. Those opinions damned near got him killed. I can sympathize, even if I don't agree.

Hoosier Daddy said...

When President Obama said he was looking to find 'whose ass to kick' did anyone reasonably think he was actually going to personally beat someone up?

I can't believe that we're still having a discussion of whether spoken metaphors incite someone to commit mass murder.

shoutingthomas said...

Yes, but the question is:

Why have the Democrats flipped their position on freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech used to be the most treasured ideal of Democrats.

What caused the switch?

Fred4Pres said...

The Magnificent Yankee.

And he also thought morons should not breed. Does Loughner qualify.

shoutingthomas said...

And, to elaborate on my own comments:

The new position of the Democratic Party, which is that censorship is essential to stop some ideas from being expressed can only mean one thing:

Some ideas are too likely to lead to electoral failure for Democrats. Thus, these dangerous ideas must be suppressed.

Peter Friedman said...

Is what Holmes wrote (in dissent) in Abrams v. U.S. really at all disputable these days? He was, after all, dissenting from the CRIMINAL PROSECUTION of anti-war protesters.

I presume, therefore, that this quote must pertain to support for the Cordoba Community Center against any efforts to employ governmental efforts to stop it. It wouldn't have any bearing on, say, calls for people to refrain from rhetoric suggesting that violence is always an option against policies they do not agree with. Criticism of such rhetoric without any threat of governmental force is entirely consistent with the "marketplace of ideas" Holmes was advocating with the words you've quoted, Professor.

Capt. Schmoe said...

shoutingthomas said...

"Yes, but the question is:

Why have the Democrats flipped their position on freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech used to be the most treasured ideal of Democrats."

Because they now have the power, particularly the power to appoint and confirm Supreme Court Justices and federal judges.

Oso Negro said...

He sure was right that "three generations of imbeciles are enough."

traditionalguy said...

Free speech now includes the right to overturn bans on the expression of facts that expose a false set of facts backing up a government scam. Think WikiLeaks. Internet censors are pleading their case in the White House as we speak.

shoutingthomas said...

Because they now have the power, particularly the power to appoint and confirm Supreme Court Justices and federal judges.

To some extent.

The real answer is that the Tea Party and Palin represent something that Democrats thought they had forbidden... lower and middle class white people voting as a block for their self-interests.

This is already happening.

Democrats encourage blacks to vote as a block for their self-interest. Same with SWPL women and gays.

The emerging reality that lower and middle class voters can and will vote as a block for their self-interest is an idea that Democrats label "hate speech." Candidates who represent lower and middle class voters, like Palin, must be destroyed.

Those lower middle class white guys with pickup trucks like to work at construction jobs and pouring concrete. They are in direct competition with illegal immigrants. So, those lower middle class white guys must be "racists," right?

d-day said...

Tell that to this guy.

traditionalguy said...

We also need to be eternally vigilant to changes in question form on the Althouse Masthead. As Jack Benny said, we are thinking about it.

garage mahal said...


The new position of the Democratic Party, which is that censorship is essential to stop some ideas from being expressed can only mean one thing:


So how many Democrats can you name that are for censoring your speech? You blab here everyday. What Democrats are calling for censoring other people's speech? I'm betting you can't name one.

I see your link to VDARE, which would explain much of your evident racial hangups.

Chris said...

Isn't that the problem though? People who consider the expression of any thought or idea not explicitly leftist to be a mortal threat to America?

Scott M said...

That depends, Garage. Do you consider reinstating the fairness doctrine as hampering or helping free speech in general? Plenty of democratic senators in support there.

How about net neutrality? Internet ID? The Feingold half of McCain- Feingold? There are more, but let's work through this list first.

Hagar said...

This sounds like a reference to President Lincoln's decision to (quite illegally) suspend habeas corpus in Maryland and Virginia (states surrounding Washington, DC and then in a state of armed insurrection), which is not quite the same as advocating the suppression of AGW sceptics.

J said...

Holmes' eloquent rhetoric surpassed most in the Black Robe gang--though his eloquent praise of eugenics and social Darwinism might offend some (probably not the wannabe-Kissingers of A-house though).

shoutingthomas said...

I see your link to VDARE, which would explain much of your evident racial hangups.

You're the racist, garage. You are wallowing in bitter racial hatred because Michele Malkin is outdoing you.

Steve Sailer is one of my favorite writers. He's one of the few people out there making sense.

Your attack is proof that I am correct. Are you preparing for the next election? Do you plan to accuse everybody who opposes you of racism. I predict that you will.

The Democratic Party is arguing en masse that some speech is so dangerous that it has to be banned. Where have you been the past week and a half. CNN has even taken, hilariously, to self-censorship.

Thanks for the demonstration, garage. I predict your tactics will not work.

Because... everybody understands the argument that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Whites have been observing that Obama has been handing out the goodies based on racial favoritism. People, even evil white people, will inevitably wonder why they shouldn't do the same.

What is my "racial hangup," garage? My late wife was Filipina. My extended family is half white and half Filipino and Japanese.

You know, garage, you are a venomous, hateful man. You're speech needs to be curtailed.

garage mahal said...

The Democratic Party is arguing en masse that some speech is so dangerous that it has to be banned.

Who?

shoutingthomas said...

And, as if to shine a spotlight on my argument, garage has just about declared that some things are too dangerous to be read...

Like an article by Steve Sailer discussing the likelihood that Republicans will seek to maximize their appear to lower and middle class white voters.

Thanks garage. You are truly the enemy. SWPL class hatred. Snob intellectual pretensions. The works.

I take all of your accusations as compliments.

shoutingthomas said...

The Democratic Party is arguing en masse that some speech is so dangerous that it has to be banned.

Who?

Every Media Matters blog out there. Daily KOS. Huffington Post. Etc.

Every one is arguing that military metaphors must be purged from political speech.

Fen said...

Most of you still don't know this, but remember the Health Care Bill? The one no congress-critter could be bothered to read before voting for it? I slipped in a provision declaring me Dictator for Life.

Now, a few thoughts:

"... unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country."

I decree the above thought to imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law.

Have a lovely day. *motions to MiniTruth SWAT*

garage mahal said...

Every Media Matters blog out there. Daily KOS. Huffington Post. Etc

Pointing out someone's speech isn't a call to ban it. C'mon, you know how to link. Who is calling for banning speech?

J said...

Actually some DINO politicians--like Waxman-- have argued for censorship of blogs. Yet most intelligent democrats oppose the J-Edgar policies, whether initiated by Dems or conservatives. And anyone who considers the chi chi, westside celebrity-led Huff-Po the voice of the Democratic party probably shouldn't be blogging.

holdfast said...

When you say Waxman is a DINO, I assume you mean that he's really a full-on Commie pretending to be a Dem? Because he sure isn't a centrist.

woof said...

What you won’t hear, except from me, is that 'Let the good times roll' is an especially risky message for African-Americans. The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society.
—Sailer, Steve, "Let the Good Times Roll", VDare.com

shoutingthomas said...

Let's go back to the standard liberal slander technique, garage, that you like to employ.

I've got "racial hangups."

My extended family is half white and half Filipino. I work on a daily basis with Pakistani and Indian programmers. I live in a mixed race neighborhood.

Tell me about your racial hangups. Employing slander to try to shut up people is censorship, garage.

Looks like the first person guilty of it is you.

So, when do you plan to stop using these slander techniques to censor your opponents?

shoutingthomas said...

I will now exit this conversation as it descends into madness.

Thank you, garage, and woof, for proving that I am correct.

The threat of Sarah Palin is that middle and lower class white people will vote as a block for their self-interest.

You may now proceed, garage and woof, to outdo one another in proving me right, while you think you are doing precisely the opposite.

hawkeyedjb said...

"Al Sharpton said that he’d met with the FCC about getting Rush Limbaugh banned from the radio. 'This is not a first amendment issue,' Sharpton said. 'He can talk at home all he wants.'"

But Al Sharpton might not be a real Democrat, having run for the presidency only two times. At various times many Democrats (Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer two cite a couple) have expressed the need to reinstate the 'Fairness Doctrine' which is nothing but a call for censorship. When government gets to determine 'fairness' and citizens need to seek permission to speak, there is not free speech, there is only regulated speech. And that's what most people on the left want.

garage mahal said...

Thank you, garage, and woof, for proving that I am correct.

No linky yet Thomas. I assumed you did a cursory search, and came back with nothing? Well that's embarrassing.

Hagar said...

At present, any martial metaphors and arguments for repealing the medical insurance omnibus bill.

With regard to President Lincoln's action, the Supremes did not want other presidents to consider it a useful precedent, so they declared it to have been unjustified and illegal, but prudently waited until the Civil War was over to declare it so.

William said...

It's all very well for Oliver Wendell Holmes to say that, but he did not have to face down an angry mob, engorged on George Will's Latinate words and driven to frenzy by that pundit''s complex sentence structure. Can anyone here guarantee that the next mad gunman will not be a faithful reader of George Will? It is simply not prudent for a civilized society to take such risks. It follows as the night the day, therefore, that all decent people should insult Sarah Palin.

Maguro said...

woof - How have Detroit and East St Louis fared since we decided to let the good times roll in the late 60s?

ricpic said...

I gonna put a spell on you...because you're M-I-I-N-E.

shoutingthomas said...

So, when do you plan to stop using these slander techniques to censor your opponents?

Actually, garage, I work... but, surprisingly, not for you.

So, instantaneous response to your idiot jibberings is not always possible.

We've wander into an abyss of your stupidity here, and I won't play with you any more.

We have been discussing for a solid week and a half on this blog the Democratic Party's call for censorship of political speech.

You've been engaging in that debate, moron, and now you're pretending that you don't even know what the debate was about.

Get back to me when you get over this momentary collapse of mental function.

ricpic said...

George Will, when in high dudgeon, latinates the mau mauers

garage mahal said...

We have been discussing for a solid week and a half on this blog the Democratic Party's call for censorship of political speech.

And yet you still can't come up with one actual example.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Garage:
Unfortunately, Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., wants to do just that. He’s introducing a bill that would make it a crime “to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.” That’s an insidious and sinister reaction to a tragedy that by all indications, appears to have been committed by an insane man.

Or

Rep. James Clyburn, the South Carolina lawmaker who is the House’s third highest-ranking Democrat, called for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, which once regulated TV and radio broadcasters under the oversight of the Federal Communications Commission.
"Free speech is as free speech does,” Clyburn told the Charleston Post and Courier last week. “You cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater and call it free speech. And some of what I hear, and [what] is being called free speech, is worse than that."

Or Al Sharpton
You’re going to tell me it’s alright to get up and by any way you want, explicit or implicit, just offend people based on their race or their gender or their sex? I think that we’ve got to have a standard across the board in government how we use these airwaves and I’m determined to make sure we have that standard.

Alex said...

garage - do your own fucking research.

shoutingthomas said...

And yet you still can't come up with one actual example.

Yes, I did.

You've are either a complete idiot or a liar. Althouse has been blogging for a week and a half on the Democratic Party's call for censorship of political speech. What do you think this discussion is about?

I'm done, garage. There is no explanation for your behavior other than that you are an idiot or a liar.

The argument we have been considering is that an entire range of words should be censored out of the language, in the name of "civility." (I feel like I'm speaking to an absolute dunce.) This is, garage, what is called "censorship."

Perhaps the problem, garage, is that you are too dumb to understand what is meant by "censorship?"

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



So do those people count as Democrats Garage? Just wondering? Sound like support of Free Speech to you?

Dood/doodette you’re playing like Tom Brady…and it’s the Play-Offs, you are losing, please step up your game.

shoutingthomas said...

Now, garage, why don't you go back to the racism slandering.

At least, you made a teeny bit of sense there.

I mean, it was vicious and conniving, but at least you made some sense.

You're not bright, are you? Palin must terrify you with her intellect.

Calypso Facto said...

I prefer this OWH gem:
"Lawyers spend their professional careers shoveling smoke",
the accuracy of which I believe the Professor proved in her previous post on how to voting for Obama was counter intuitively the best course.

Maguro said...

"Lawyers spend their professional careers shoveling smoke"

Sounds like this was censored...

Michael said...

Garage: Here are links to a few instances where liberals have suggested shutting down Fox News and talk radio. There are, of course, thousands of such links available on the search engines Google and Bing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8Eq3hOQF9o

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/liberal-journalists-suggest-government-shut-down-fox-news/

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=157565

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



Not a Democrat, but a nice little synopsis of Progressive thinking, Simon Jenkins:

Today's culprit is freedom of speech, or at least the speech of the American right and its broadcast cheerleaders (Emph. Added). Shock-jock radio presenters feed on biased television news to present a view of the world divided between goodies and baddies. The baddies are always on the brink of victory and must be confronted with virile aggression. Language that might not disturb a balanced mind can clearly stimulate and legitimise an unbalanced one.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



So are all these enough Garage? Do you want more?

Oh here’s one more:
I'm tired of the right and the left. There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, "Out. Off. End. Goodbye." It'd be a big favor to political discourse, our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future.

Only SENATOR Jay Rockefeller…does he count or is he a fringe kook?

garage mahal said...

Joe
(The Crypto Jew)
I see you came up with one valid example. bravo. So this is what this Censorship Week has been about? One Dem Congressman that wants to make a crime of symbols and speech threatening members of Congress? Why I would say this is yet another epic Hissy Fit from ther right if I didn't know any better!

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



And then there’s the back-door suppression, “diversity” and “Local content” Yes, let’s make radio more local, i.e., less Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and both more local AND diverse…stations need diversity councils. I’ll bet that once every group has a member the council will hardly have time for any national programming, and between the “Mulatto Touch-Typists” and “Chrystal Healing Hour” there won’t be much time for anything pesky like popular radio….

garage mahal said...

LOL

You guys are too much. Really.

PaulV said...

Thomas,
Either Garage is stupid and has failed to keep up with common knowledge. Or he is as loony as Loughter.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



Garage you don’t do reading OR math do you…JAY ROCKEFELLER and Clyburn and Robert Brady are THREE members of Congress, not one…and last time I checked Al Sharpton counted for something too in the D-Party….sorry about your dyslexia, innumeracy, or illiteracy….

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

LOL

You guys are too much. Really.


The old dismissive approach…Translation: “Oh SH!te I’m nailed ten ways to Sunday! OK, I’ll just airily wave my hands and say ‘It doesn’t mean anything.’” Best move on…from here-on-out today I’m just laughing at YOU, Garage…

See playing like Brady…looking past your opponent, Step up your game…or you’re going to be watching the Big Game at home…like Tom Brady, who does have Gisele Bundchen to watch it with, which may make the pain easier to take…

shoutingthomas said...

Observing garage reversing all of the left's dearly held assumptions about freedom of speech now that they no longer serves his purposes is an exercise in madness, isn't it?

J said...

Well as Holmes stated free speech does not mean you can shout FIRE in a crowded theatre (when there isn't one, at least).

IS Glenn Beck or Limbaugh shouting FIRE? At times. Perhaps cut a deal...Dem media censor Sharpton, maybe even...Olbermann, and Glenn Beck's muzzled as well.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Well as Holmes stated free speech does not mean you can shout FIRE in a crowded theatre (when there isn't one, at least).

IS Glenn Beck or Limbaugh shouting FIRE? At times. Perhaps cut a deal...Dem media censor Sharpton, maybe even...Olbermann, and Glenn Beck's muzzled as well..


Uh-Uh…nice try:
1) Speech even Alex Jones speech is sacrosanct, so to censor Beck OR Olbermann is wrong;
2) Sure “you” give up “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” and 250,000 viewers and “we” give up Beck with 1,000,000 million viewers? Who’s hurt worse, Left or Right…nice try “J”.
That’s what Rockefeller was doing, giving up MSNBC, a loss leader, to get Fox…great exchange it gives his side ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN and we get nothing…

roesch-voltaire said...

It is not a question of censorship but recognizing that words matter and influence, other wise why use them? To quote James W. Clarke, a scholar on American assassins, "It is pure nonsense to suggest, as some have, that the political environment has nothing to do with the actions of very disturbed individuals...." And apparently we have plenty of these individuals-- just yesterday and bomb was planted along the MLK parade route in Spokane, Wash. At the very least we need to open the dialog in programs control by a very narrow group of media owners, and we need to be able to label the rhetoric calling for "shooting people in the head,"(Beck) as irresponsible and dangerous. I think talk radio could take a page from Thom Hartmen who gives credible folks with different views than his a change to disagree in extended dialogs-- something missing of most of the other shows. Call it diversity, or call it being intellectually honest.

Alex said...

rv - BLOOD LIBEL. You just accused Beck of calling for the "shooting in the head" of Democrats. Link please, or face immediate perm-ban.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



One name R-V…Randi Rhodes…get back to me when you trash her and call her “irresponsible and dangerous.” Yeah those few people calling the shots in radio, you mean the SUCCESSFUL ONES? You think Air America and its followers ought to have a seat at the table? Even though it folded? Sure great plan, let the folks who CAN’T do talk radio have a say in what’s aired…it’ll KILL Talk Radio, and leave your side with NPR. Again, great plan…sorry no thanks not buying it.

But thank you for playing…go back to World Class Environmental Engineering and Condescension.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



BTW, R-V the quote is about a captured Taliban Leader…not a US figure….

J said...

Speech even Alex Jones speech is sacrosanct

Nice try, but at best speech is protected. Not sacrosanct. And defamation or telling outright falsehoods can be prosecuted--so can blatantly racist or obscene speech. Now, a Fox dolt might get away with it, a local politician, professor, preacher, not likely.

But that wasn't really the issue, which was sort of speculative, Joe. As in should a loudmouth know-nothing (like with 2 years of college, if that) like Glenn Beck have the right to spout off about any and everything, or tell lies, or utter racist/sexist speech? (Hint: nyet) . Were Beck to like get on FoxCo and deny the...Holocaust ever happened, you can bet many would want him censored, ASAP.

Maguro said...

Were Beck to like get on FoxCo and deny the...Holocaust ever happened, you can bet many would want him censored, ASAP.

Well, he would be fired by Fox. But censorship is something that the government does, and we (thankfully) don't have holocaust-denial laws in this country. So no, he wouldn't be censored.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

But that wasn't really the issue, which was sort of speculative, Joe. As in should a loudmouth know-nothing (like with 2 years of college, if that) like Glenn Beck have the right to spout off about any and everything, or tell lies, or utter racist/sexist speech? (Hint: nyet) . Were Beck to like get on FoxCo and deny the...Holocaust ever happened, you can bet many would want him censored, ASAP.

I don’t know how much college do you have? Is it enough to justify YOU speaking “J?” You seem fairly typical of your ilk, the rules won’t affect YOU, just “them.” So should a former sports reporter and graduate from Cornell’s AGRICULTURE School have a national “news” show and “spout off about any and everything, or tell lies”? Just wondered there “J?” Should you be allowed to ask a Congresswomon to slit her wrists, or slit her own throat? How about THAT, “J?” Funny don’t hear you talking about THAT, “J?” Funny, huh…who has the hate….

Alex said...

J - do you favor government censorship of people who conduct "hate speech" or "lies"?

J said...

uh oh, Faguaro with the Larry Craig LOg Cabin GOP, representin'

Glenn Beck that fat mormon byatch will be shutting up, sooner than you think Faguaro. As will you.

Calypso Facto said...

Good point, RV: Beck, a private citizen without military influence, should be excoriated for talking about whether an enemy combatant should be killed rather than captured, while the Obama administration gets a pass for a policy of avoiding the unpleasantries of dealing with enemy prisoners by ACTUALLY KILLING over 1,000 Afghans and Pakastanis through drone strikes. But by all means, let's discuss the dangers (!!!) of Beck's speech.

TMink said...

edutcher, thanks for educating me.

Trey

J said...

Crypto-Jew Joe:

better question: should a moron who strings together endless hypothetical questions be taken seriously ? Answer: NO.

Aufweederzehen CJ.

Glenn Beck's speech should be restricted to verifiable points, only. For that matter, so should all pundits. In effect the Foxbots want the right to incite, to spew vitriol and hype, to utter half-truths. Has nothing to do with Truth, but ....keeping the yokels fired up (and selling ads)

Maguro said...

LOL, "J". Put down the bong and pull yourself together, boy. You embarrass yourself here.

Comrade X said...

Among people who have learned something from the 18th century (sayVoltaire) it is a truism hardly deserving discussion that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended.(Noam Chomsky)

from J's profile. so apparently he likes free speech when he's not calling for restrictions on other people's or calling someone a faggot.

Michael said...

J: !!Amigo!! Nightmare dude!! You wrote "IS Glenn Beck or Limbaugh shouting FIRE? At times."

Link us ONE time please.

J said...

then....why should corporate pundits tell the truth, conduct rational debates, be fair, fact-check, so forth? That would be dull, C-SPAN style rhetoric.

Hysterical blowhards such as Glenn Beck and Limbaugh move product--nothin' to do with journalistic integrity or facts. Has to do with PT Barnum, Inc.

J said...

IS Glenn Beck or Limbaugh shouting FIRE?

Limbaugh's lies are well-documented. He tells a few each week (like his howler last week that the TP outnumbered the Demos. Hah.). Beck's probably too stupid to be a good prevaricator.

That Limbaugh has not been prosecuted for defamation doesn't mean he shouldn't be.

Fen said...

Now now. Garage and Al Shaprton get to decide what "imminently threatens immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law", not us.

Al " Tawana Brawley Hoax" Sharpton: we’ve got to have a standard across the board in government how we use these airwaves and I’m determined to make sure we have that standard.

Al, you're the LAST person to be determining standards. How are you even on the air anymore after the fraud you pulled.

Al Sharpton: This is not a first amendment issue, he can talk at home all he wants.

What a stupid fucking racist.

woof said...

That Limbaugh has not been prosecuted for defamation doesn't mean he shouldn't be.

Defamation is a civil issue not a criminal issue.

As a leftest, I'm totally opposed to censoring speech. You fight speech you don't like with more speech.

Fen said...

"Link us ONE time please."

J: Limbaugh's lies are well-documented.

ie. you aint got shit.

J said...

Whoa! Some boddy stop me.........


Time for a break, A-house gals, you *&^$%^%$ of #$^&&^ &*&%*%*.

Maybe like start over with Jefferson, Madison, & Co. Or ebonics Aristotle 101 for the rationally challenged

Maguro said...

Al, you're the LAST person to be determining standards. How are you even on the air anymore after the fraud you pulled.

Not to mention Freddy's Fashion Mart.

If you want to talk about incitement to murder, there's a prime example.

J said...

4: 20. Oh I got plenty of shit. FatboyLimbaugh's no better than Fatbo7y Beck.

and like 200lbs of steel to smash in yr byatch face, WASPo-zionist mierda. 405/818 side, pendejo

Michael said...

J: Amigo!! Very uncivil retort. Saying something is so is not a link to an instance of Beck or Rush shouting FIRE. Asserting that something is so does not make it so, hipster dude. Provide one, just one, link of either party doing the equivalent of shouting fire.

Michael said...

J: Have you ever thought of oiling your gat and sticking it up your hipster ass? How is that gat by the way? Big bore for a big bore or are you more of a euro millimeter kind of gansta hipster?

J said...

Nada mas blanca-basura

asi que....Cheney, Le Gran Mentiroso

hawkeyedjb said...

"should a loudmouth know-nothing (like with 2 years of college, if that) like Glenn Beck have the right to spout off about any and everything"

Well yes, if you want free speech. But no, if you want controlled speech. So which do you want?

roesch-voltaire said...

This is a quote from the Fox News script--after Beck was talking the media and Washington, he said, "
You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you." I realize he is not logical, but still this is irresponsible crap.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594343,00.html#ixzz1BWXkGFmw

Michael said...

J: Dude!! You are in the trash business!! And are you like a non-white hipster because you haven't mentioned that you might actually be a bad ass gat carrying mistizo? How come no more white trash? We have plenty of white trash down here in the sweet sunny south. Are you suggesting we eliminate them? Surely not. No more white trash like anywhere? What caliber your gat?

Don said...

I don't know what the precise legal term for it is - ironic? but apparently the quote from Holmes' Schenck opinion actually upheld the conviction of a draft protester of all things. Holmes, if wikipedia is to be believed, then went on to concur in the Whitney v. California opinion that supplemented the "clear and present danger" formulation with a "bad tendency" test to uphold the conviction of someone involved in starting up a communist party. And since then the Court has adopted an "imminent lawless action" test which overturned the conviction of a KKK leader for advocating violence. I'm glad con law butters Althouse's bread, but all of her tags on this post do seem accurate.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Hey so's "Give me Liberty or Give me Death!"

Speech is NOT "responsible" speech, it's speech....

People like you want "responsible" speech, i.e., speech you like or speech from your opponents that is so mild, so convoluted in its complexity, so harmless that it really doesn't impede your intellectual progress. Sorry to say, speech is Rush Limbaugh and Mike Malloy and Randi Rhodes...Speech is Ayn Randf and Herbert Marcuse...we don't sull it on "responsible" or not, but only on wheteher it has a market or not.

In YOUR case, I believe, the problem is not Irresposnible Speech, were it so we'd hear more about Rhodes, Malloy, or Schultz, no instead you complain aobut EFFECTIVE Speech, Speech that IMPEDES your progress, and so you wish to label it "Irresponsible."

Again, nice try...stick to the Environmental Engineering, though.

Alex said...

Beck was talking about putting a bullet in the head of Marxist revolutionaries. That's totally justified. He said nothing about Democrats.

dick said...

GM,

Some guy named Obama wants to shut down Fox News because of the news they broadcast.

The FCC wants to control and censor the Internet.

Harvard University wants to censor the students and what they have to say.

Univ of Delaware wants to censor what the students write and speak.

Univ of San Francisco wants to censor what Jewish students say but not Muslim students.

AST said...

Too bad Holmes isn't here to tell us how to deal with imams encouraging violent jihad and sharia law.

Gene said...

GarageMahal: So how many Democrats can you name that are for censoring your speech? You blab here everyday. What Democrats are calling for censoring other people's speech? I'm betting you can't name one.

I'm surprised you don't remember the left's decades-long efforts to suppress free speech at colleges and universities across the country through the use of speech codes.

Sheldon Hackney, when he was president of the University of Pennsylvania, famously tried to expel a student who called a group of black women students "water buffaloes" for laughing and singing under his dorm window during finals week. The campus free speech advisor said the term was racist because water buffalo were black and from Africa (actually usually tan and from Asia).

This was such an absurd case it everyone from John Chancellor to Doonesbury ridiculed the school. A group of heroic professors finally saved the student's much persecuted butt. Naturally Bill Clinton appointed Hackney to be Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Donna Shalala, when she was chancellor of the University of Wisconsin instituted a speech code which a federal judge later found unconstitutional. She also tried to limit what profs could say in their classrooms, but this backfired when too many professors got brought up on charges. For her efforts Bill Clinton made her Secretary of Health and Human Services.

In a 2007 case at Indiana-Purdue university in Indianapolis a student was found guilty of racial harassment for reading (an academic) textbook in public whose cover showed men wearing Klan hoods.

A professor at Brandeis University was prosecuted for racial harassment for using the term wetback in his Latin American politics class.

There are numerous instances where leftist students on college campus have stolen the entire printing of college newspapers for what they considered offensive stories, columns or cartoons. In most cases the college administration merely looked the other way.

I remember once personally asking the head of the Woman's Studies Department at Lon Beach State why she wouldn't allow conservative woman students to post notices on the department's bulletin board. Her unabashed answer: "I'm a communist. I don't believe in free speech."

Gene said...

GarageMahal: So how many Democrats can you name that are for censoring your speech? You blab here everyday. What Democrats are calling for censoring other people's speech? I'm betting you can't name one.

I'm surprised you don't remember the left's decades-long efforts to suppress free speech at colleges and universities across the country through the use of speech codes.

Sheldon Hackney, when he was president of the University of Pennsylvania, famously tried to expel a student who called a group of black women students "water buffaloes" for laughing and singing under his dorm window during finals week. The campus free speech advisor said the term was racist because water buffalo were black and from Africa (actually usually tan and from Asia).

This was such an absurd case it everyone from John Chancellor to Doonesbury ridiculed the school. A group of heroic professors finally saved the student's butt. In return for Hackney's dedication to free speech, Bill Clinton appointed him to be Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Donna Shalala, when she was chancellor of the University of Wisconsin instituted a speech code which a federal judge later found unconstitutional. She also tried to limit what profs could say in their classrooms, but this backfired when too many professors got brought up on charges. For her efforts Bill Clinton made her Secretary of Health and Human Services.

In a 2007 case at Indiana-Purdue university in Indianapolis a student was found guilty of racial harassment for reading (an academic) textbook in public whose cover showed men wearing Klan hoods.

A professor at Brandeis University was prosecuted for racial harassment for using the term wetback in his Latin American politics class.

There are numerous instances where leftist students on college campus have stolen the entire printing of college newspapers for what they considered offensive stories, columns or cartoons. In most cases the college administration merely looked the other way.

I remember once personally asking the head of the Woman's Studies Department at Lon Beach State why she wouldn't allow conservative woman students to post notices on the department's bulletin board. Her unabashed answer: "I'm a communist. I don't believe in free speech."

Fen said...

J_Libtard: Oh I got plenty of shit.

Right. Thats why you keep telling us how full of shit you are instead of actually backing up your assertions.

No worries. Two can play that and I'll be here all week.

FatboyLimbaugh's no better than Fatbo7y Beck.

Oh lookie. Eric Fuller was released back to his mama's basement.

Gene said...

GarageMahal: So how many Democrats can you name that are for censoring your speech? You blab here everyday. What Democrats are calling for censoring other people's speech? I'm betting you can't name one.

I'm surprised you don't remember the left's decades-long efforts to suppress free speech at colleges and universities across the country through the use of speech codes.

Sheldon Hackney, when he was president of the University of Pennsylvania, famously tried to expel a student who called a group of black women students "water buffaloes" for laughing and singing under his dorm window during finals week. The campus free speech advisor said the term was racist because water buffalo were black and from Africa (actually usually tan and from Asia).

This was such an absurd case it everyone from John Chancellor to Doonesbury ridiculed the school. A group of heroic professors finally saved the student's butt. Naturally Bill Clinton appointed Hackney to be Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Donna Shalala, when she was chancellor of the University of Wisconsin instituted a speech code which a federal judge later found unconstitutional. She also tried to limit what profs could say in their classrooms, but this backfired when too many professors got brought up on charges. For her efforts Bill Clinton made her Secretary of Health and Human Services.

In a 2007 case at Indiana-Purdue university in Indianapolis a student was found guilty of racial harassment for reading (an academic) textbook in public whose cover showed men wearing Klan hoods.

A professor at Brandeis University was prosecuted for racial harassment for using the term wetback in his Latin American politics class.

There are numerous instances where leftist students on college campus have stolen the entire printing of college newspapers for what they considered offensive stories, columns or cartoons. In most cases the college administration merely looked the other way.

I remember once personally asking the head of the Woman's Studies Department at Lon Beach State why she wouldn't allow conservative woman students to post notices on the department's bulletin board. Her unabashed answer: "I'm a communist. I don't believe in free speech."

somefeller said...

If government officials use their speech to try to persuade us not to criticize what they are doing, is that censorship? No. It's not. There's no coercion. If you shut up, it's because they persuaded you. (And maybe you shouldn't be so gullible.)...People tell each other to shut up all the time. You have to learn not to accept the pushback. Censorship is when the government coerces you.

Gene said...

GarageMahal: So how many Democrats can you name that are for censoring your speech? You blab here everyday. What Democrats are calling for censoring other people's speech? I'm betting you can't name one.

I'm surprised you don't remember the left's decades-long efforts to suppress free speech at colleges and universities across the country through the use of speech codes.

Sheldon Hackney, when he was president of the University of Pennsylvania, famously tried to expel a student who called a group of black women students "water buffaloes" for laughing and singing under his dorm window during finals week. The campus free speech advisor said the term was racist because water buffalo were black and from Africa (actually usually tan and from Asia).

This was such an absurd case it everyone from John Chancellor to Doonesbury ridiculed the school. A group of heroic professors finally saved the student's butt. Naturally Bill Clinton appointed Hackney to be Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Donna Shalala, when she was chancellor of the University of Wisconsin instituted a speech code which a federal judge later found unconstitutional. For her efforts Bill Clinton made her Secretary of Health and Human Services.

In a 2007 case at Indiana-Purdue university in Indianapolis a student was found guilty of racial harassment for reading (an academic) textbook in public whose cover showed men wearing Klan hoods.

A professor at Brandeis University was prosecuted for racial harassment for using the term wetback in his Latin American politics class.

There are numerous instances where leftist students on college campus have stolen the entire printing of college newspapers for what they considered offensive stories, columns or cartoons.

I remember once personally asking the head of the Woman's Studies Department at Lon Beach State why she wouldn't allow conservative woman students to post notices on the department's bulletin board. Her unabashed answer: "I'm a communist. I don't believe in free speech."