Letters to the Editor
-
Anonymous@ 09:17 AM
Interesting perspective. I wish you had contributed sooner.
Sandy Yago,
You are overthinking this.
It goes in the "politics makes strange bedfellows" file.
Polderjongen, Bungenholen, whatever: Pinhead.
-
Dirigo: "Judith Prudence"
I knew her in high school. She was just the same then as she is now. Couldn't get past that "are you or are you not a Person?" thing...
Thanks, you made my day... ;-)
-
But Glenn, when you ban a reader you disagree with from posting their comments on your site, you're guilty of precisely the same thing.
"But equally pernicious, at least, are those who advocate laws that would proscribe and punish political expression, and those who exploit those laws to try use the power of the State to impose penalties on those expressing 'offensive' or 'insulting' or 'wrong' political ideas."
Sorry, Glenn, I'm afraid penalizing people who disagree with you by banning them from posting here -- no matter how "offensive" or "insulting" or "wrong" their political ideas are -- is exactly the kind of behavior you're professing to deplore. Could you possibly BE more hypocritical?
-
Dear Judith Prudence
Won't you come out to play?
-
-- Gordon
"(Wonder if the limerick about the lady from Nantucket would now meet a similar fate.)"
That would be quite impossible since the "lady" from Nantucket is a man.
-
:)
..and now that everyone has repeated that old ditty about the man from Nantucket in their heads.....it's time to get back to the thread.
Proceed.
-
What Are You Smoking, Glenn?
Sorry, Glenn, but talking about tyrnannical and the Canadian government in the same breath is just ludicrous! Your column is filled with factual error - hate speech laws are not criminal for one thing! (weren't you a lawyer, once?).
Also, since when is American speech so "free?" Can you yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater in America? No, that would be a crime. So speech in America isn't free either.
Can a woman show her breast on a televised NFL broadcast? Apparently not. So how free are things south of the line?
Could I march against the Republican Party during their NYC convention? 1200 people were arrested for doing nothing more. How "FREE" is that?
Get your facts straight. Put them in context. Isn't that what you're always telling the other media voices out there? And the fact you haven't corrected the factual errors in this column with an update reveals a double standard I'm surprised to find. I've always been a huge fan.
-
Thread censorship
I would prefer to do my own thread censoring instead of having it done for me except when the volume becomes a hindrance or stalking hinders someone else from commenting and is forced to choose Anonymous.
I believe Nulla's poem was deleted due to racist words not foul language. He was not acting as a racist and I think the deletion was premature. Hate speech has to be judged for intent and unfortunately in our PC world, people make judgments just because a word is used rather than judging the intent.
-
Virtue001- I'll Type This Slowly
Sorry, Glenn, I'm afraid penalizing people who disagree with you by banning them from posting here -- no matter how "offensive" or "insulting" or "wrong" their political ideas are -- is exactly the kind of behavior you're professing to deplore. Could you possibly BE more hypocritical?
No, it isn't. Yes, it does seem that way- both entities are banning offensive/disruptive personal expression. The Difference? Glenn's blog is a private site run by a private individual, hosted by a private corporation- the Canadian Government is, well, A Government
Do you see the difference there? You could make an entirely separate argument that Glenn is unfair for banishing certain posters, but that has absolutely nothing to do with his criticism of a Government censoring the inalienable right of free expression delineated (I assume) in the Canadian Constitution. The most significant aspect differentiating the two is Power. Glenn has the power to change minds that are open to change, and to document the many flaws and fallacies in our political discourse- and people are free to read his opinions, or not . Those are the limits of Glenn's power. Conversely, the Canadian government has near-absolute power within their borders- power to fine, imprison, inconvenience, or otherwise punish it's own citizens for what they think . The abuse of that power is far-reaching and highly toxic to democracy and self-government.
If you watch the video, Levant makes the point that he has repeatedly given intricate, eloquent explanations in private venues for why he published those comics- but that he will do no such thing when it is his government asking him to explain under threat of punishment .
Got it?
-
Political Poet
You're right, context is very important.
Yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater- in direct proximity- can cause immediate public harm by inciting a stampede.
A woman's breast on BROADCAST television is disallowed because we as a society have deemed the risk that children could be UNWILLINGLY exposed to such images is too high. You can show boobies on cable, because it's a subscription service.
Levant published cartoons in a format that requires action- and therefore responsibility- on the part of the observer. The cartoons were non-specific towards, and the venue was not directly proximal to, any crowd or group that could directly lead to violence or other harm to the public.
Law- most especially free-speech law- is incredibly complex and nuanced in its tests and definitions. It is usually not a good idea to lecture a constitutional lawyer on the absolutes of such complex laws.
-
Explaining again
Because its a long thread and the point seems lost. If someone wants me to be a witness on their behalf they can issue a subpoena. Having been served with one, I am therefore compelled to appear. Failure to appear subjects me to criminal sanctions. Notice that I am not myself subject to a criminal proceeding but the threat of one remains in place to insure my compliance.
People who harp on the fact that the Canadian process isn't a criminal proceeding are deliberately ignoring this important point. Just because no one is charged with a crime doesn't mean that the full brunt of the criminal justice system doesn't stand at the ready to insure compliance.
-
Food for thought
[Glenn, from the post]: Just like Bush followers who bizarrely think that the limitless presidential powers they're cheering on will only be wielded by political leaders they like, many hate speech law proponents convince themselves that such laws will only be used to punish speech they dislike. That is never how tyrannical government power works.
One bit of advice I'd heard while in law school about legislation was to imagine the proposed text in the hands of your worst enemy. If you'd be comfortable with that, you're on the right track. It's a bit like asking the kids to have one person cut the cake and the other choose; tends to keep things from getting out of hand. Of course, such introspection, role-reversal, and self-questioning are rather difficult for RWA/conservative types to do. But their attitude towards the cake as well is "Mine ... mine ... mine ... mineminemine...."