Politics and religion.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Read it and get back to us. I think and Glenn agreed on his show today that it was shockingly fair.

As for the bolded part. How SHOCKING that you would suggest such a thing. Need I remind you that the main purpose of the 1st Amendment is to protect OFFENSIVE political speech?

People who think like the bolded part, when it comes to political speech... Are more frightening to me than any pundit.

Lots of shock going on in your world, isn't there?

Rest assured, there is nothing you need remind me about.

I am sorry that suggesting people should be responsible for the results of their words is so shocking to you.

Who are these people who suggest political speech should be curtailed? Or is "fire" in a crowded theater your idea of political speech?

I am so confused...

[Puckstop31]

Lots of shock going on in your world, isn't there?

Not really... Not much really shocks me anymore. LOL

I am sorry that suggesting people should be responsible for the results of their words is so shocking to you.

Who are these people who suggest political speech should be curtailed? Or is "fire" in a crowded theater your idea of political speech?

I am so confused...

You assume to much. How do you KNOW that people like Glenn, Hannity, Rush, etc, inspire people to do violence? How do you know that people like Olbermann, Maddow, etc did not inspire to person who kileld that abortion protester.

I prefer to hold people accountable for their actions, rather than their words. "Results of their words...." God I hate political correctness. It does NOTHING to change minds, only curtails people sharing their thoughts.

Curtail speech? YOU. Why else would you compare speech by a political pundit to yelling "fire" in a theater? Was there something else you meant to imply?

[Grace]

How do you know that people like Olbermann, Maddow, etc did not inspire to person who kileld that abortion protester.

Oh dear, the man who killed the abortion protester in Owosso, also killed a man who owned a gravel pit, and was looking to kill a realtor.

The shooter had personal grudges against all three. I doubt very much that anyone inspired him - other than his own personal demons. With the protester, he didn't like the graphics on the signs - thought kids shouldn't be exposed to them.

The media tried to make it a bigger deal than it was/is.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Not really... Not much really shocks me anymore. LOL



You assume to much. How do you KNOW that people like Glenn, Hannity, Rush, etc, inspire people to do violence? How do you know that people like Olbermann, Maddow, etc did not inspire to person who kileld that abortion protester.

I prefer to hold people accountable for their actions, rather than their words. "Results of their words...." God I hate political correctness. It does NOTHING to change minds, only curtails people sharing their thoughts.

Curtail speech? YOU. Why else would you compare speech by a political pundit to yelling "fire" in a theater? Was there something else you meant to imply?

I wasn't implying, assuming, comparing or curtailing.

If a person - pundit or idiot - uses words to encourage another to kill, steal, cheat, lie or start forest fires - I think they should bear some responsibility if the person carries out the suggestion.

<<golf clap>> for your impression of Glenn Beck though! Or were you doing Hannity?

I said none of the crap you are trying to suggest and you know it.

[blue]

So we had eight years of left wing, sorry progressive, pundits hoping for Shrub and Cheney to meet their maker. Riots from the hard lefties, sorry protests from the progresives, that trashed the protest areas, destroyed private property and squated on private property. We have had decades of the hard left in the MSM, sorry the progressives in the MSM, slanting the news in their favor. Heck the lefties, sorry again I meant the progressives, even trashed the National Mall during the Annointed One's inauguration that took 2 days to clean up.

How many czars are we up to now, 32? How many personal attendants does the First lady have, 27, 28, and what are they being paid, and who is paying them?

ACORN, a big supporter of the Long Legged Mack Daddy, is now disgraced, lost their federal funding, and left out to dry by the man they help get the most powerfull office in the world. Now who in the WH is going to do the 2010 census now that ACORN is out?

We have the S of the H crying crocodile tears remembering her friends rioting in the 70's over a peacefull and respectfull protest with no violence last weekend in DC and accross the nation.

[Puckstop31]

I wasn't implying, assuming, comparing or curtailing.

If a person - pundit or idiot - uses words to encourage another to kill, steal, cheat, lie or start forest fires - I think they should bear some responsibility if the person carries out the suggestion.

<<golf clap>> for your impression of Glenn Beck though! Or were you doing Hannity?

I said none of the crap you are trying to suggest and you know it.

This does not surprise me coming from you. It follows your ideas on guns.

I think it is a insanely slippery slope to go anywhere near the idea of legally punishing people for speech. Quite Orwellian, no? Now this does not mean that people cannot exercise THEIR free speech rights when some clown says something stupid. Like the Dixie Chicks for example. They used their free speech rights and their audience used theirs.

I guess my question is would you support LAW making a person culpable for something they say inspiring another person to do something stupid? Better yet, how in the heck do you PROVE it?


It was not Hannity for sure. That guy is a grade 1 moron and nothing but a hack for the GOP. But how would you know who I am impersonating? Do you listen, read or watch either of them regularly?


IF you were not doing what I suggested.... The what DID you mean when you said...

Just took a look at the TIME magazine that arrived today. Cover story - "Mad Man - Glenn Beck and the angry style of American politics"....should be an interesting...if terrifying...read!

Reminds me of a Supreme Court decision - about free speech - is not shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

?????

It is illegal to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater. If you were not suggesting that it be made to allow prosecution of supposed 'motivation' during political speech by pundits... What did you mean by using that comparison?

[Edwina's Secretary]

PS...you keep looking for deeper meaning in my words. Sometimes words just mean what they mean.

But if I take your argument that people should not be held responsible for the outcome of their words....what do we do with Hitler? Did he kill people? Or did he incite others to kill?

In any event....to answer your question....what did I mean. I meant "don't shout fire in a crowded theater." If you do you will be responsible for the results.

[blue]

Quick question, how many people has Obama killed? Did he kill them or by his actions or inactions cause people to be killed?.

The difference between Beck and the rest of talk radio and Hittler is, Beck hasnt, nor can he order people to rise up with violence. Beck is not shouting fire on his radio or TV show.

When the Lefties, sorry moderates, hear people saying they "hope it doesnt come to a rise to arms", or "a second revolution", they hear the opposite.

[Puckstop31]

PS...you keep looking for deeper meaning in my words. Sometimes words just mean what they mean.

But if I take your argument that people should not be held responsible for the outcome of their words....what do we do with Hitler? Did he kill people? Or did he incite others to kill?

In any event....to answer your question....what did I mean. I meant "don't shout fire in a crowded theater." If you do you will be responsible for the results.

Come on ES. You are smarter than this. You MUST know the difference between being in a position of authority and giving an order and political opinion speech?

I am not looking for the meaning of the actual words. LOL I don't assume you are a moron, please do not assume I am one either. What I want to know is why you used this specific example in the context you did. We were talking about political opinion pundits possibly motivating people to do stupid, violent things. You seemed to compare that the yelling "Fire" in a theater.

But anyway... No answer to my question? Would you support LAW making opinion pundits somehow legally culpable for actions of their listeners?

[Edwina's Secretary]

Come on ES. You are smarter than this. You MUST know the difference between being in a position of authority and giving an order and political opinion speech?

I am not looking for the meaning of the actual words. LOL I don't assume you are a moron, please do not assume I am one either. What I want to know is why you used this specific example in the context you did. We were talking about political opinion pundits possibly motivating people to do stupid, violent things. You seemed to compare that the yelling "Fire" in a theater.

But anyway... No answer to my question? Would you support LAW making opinion pundits somehow legally culpable for actions of their listeners?

Just because you messed up so badly on the other thread I will answer your question here. I do not support a new law. There are laws now on the books about inciting riots.

What I do support is pundits having enough of a backbone to take responsibility for their words.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Come on ES. You are smarter than this. You MUST know the difference between being in a position of authority and giving an order and political opinion speech?

....

But anyway... No answer to my question? Would you support LAW making opinion pundits somehow legally culpable for actions of their listeners?

I thought this topic would make for interesting cocktail party conversation. And so I brought it up at a party.

I was asked this question....if people are not responsible for the actions their words incite people to...why is Charles Manson in prison? He did not kill anyone - he incited and encouraged others to do so.

I think most of us would agree that prison is the place Manson belongs - at best. He was not a "person in a position of authority" (of course, neither was Hilter for most of his hideous career. And still people followed his words and engaged in heinous acts.)

So the next question became...if a "pundit" is not responsible for the actions of their listeners by virtue of being a "pundit"...can you call yourself a "pundit" and therefore escape responsibility?

So I remain convinced - people should be responsible for the words they speak as much as for the actions they do.

Doesn't mean they can't speak -- just means they have to be responsible.