Has the right to dissent in this country vanished since 9/11?

[Jaguar]

She says "I disagree with the way the country is being run." Marines say "We disagree with you." Both have broken no laws, and simply exercised the right to dissent. Both were allowed to dissent and the law did not take sides, (or take action.) Where is the problem?

[Q Classic]

mm. just because you have the right to free speech does not mean you should exercise it.

all free speech is a right, and is thus protected--but one also should have a sense of decorum.

although i disagree with the girl's viewpoint to an extent, she has as much of a right to exercise this right in the manner she chooses. the sailors, on the other hand, i also disagree with; but again, they have the right.
i honestly don't think they followed a decorus pattern of behaviour, though.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Where did I say that? Read, for Christ's sake. As I said--twice now--they have the right to express themselves as they wish. That does not, however, make the manner in which they express themselves equal in quality.

Control yourself, lest we call a doctor for that temper of yours!
Where does "quality" come into it?
Who appointed YOU the arbiter of what is "quality" and what isn't?
Mighty big shoulders you have to have there, Boris.

Who would find it more offensive for someone to make a silent protest than for someone to jeer at and tell someone to "get out" of the country? And why should I take their opinion, as much as they are allowed to express it, seriously?

A whole arena full of people?
Why should I take the opinion of a college girl as to the state of the nation?

For the FOURTH time now, everyone has the right to express themselves as they see fit, but that doesn't mean the manner in which one says something is necessesarily proper. All forms of expression are not equal, except in a legal sense. But that's not what I've been saying (once again).

"Proper".
Again, I see this.
Who are YOU to say what is "proper"?

Again...there is a qualitative difference between ways of expressing things, no matter how equally protected they are.

Again, your trying to impress YOUR set of values on others, your being judgemental.
Others don't agree with you, others don't agree with me.
To take the postion that they are automatically wrong if YOU don't appove is hardly free speech, now is it?

For the FIFTH time, I never said yada yada yada...

For the fifth time, your opinion is simply YOUR opinion, just as mine is mine.
I don't tell you how to protest, why should you be able to tell others how to?

And too bad, since protesting someone in a manner which calls to silence them (i.e. "get out!") is pretty contradictory to proclaiming values of free expression, now ain't it?

Again, your setting yourself up to be who decides what's allowed and what isn't.
In other words, yadda yadda yadda.

No, I said anyone who gets infuriated over someone making a silent protest needs mental health.

That's quite small minded.
I won't go into why, but I'm sure if you thought about it, you might understand that most people have a deep emotional attachment to the United states, and the flag that represents it.
You may be able to airily piss on it, others might get angry.
I would put forth that you sir, should seek mental help, in sensitivity training as to the feelings of others.
You seem to have a view of "It doesn't bother me, why should it bother you?"
That is quite egotiscal world view,
And in case you missed it, I said "seems", as meaning that's the immpression you give me.
I may be 100% wrong, but that's the ideas your words convey.

Getting infuriated by someone expressing their opinion peacefully is extreme behavior, warranting therapy.

The inability to understand other's emotions is an emotional disorder.
I suggest you look into this for yourself.
You often seem to enjoy a cut and thrust into someone.
I'm not trying to insult you Boris, but you really should consider what I say here.

First, learn what "strawman" means.

Have to correct you here.

A strawman argument is claiming your opponent said something he didn't and then arguing against that point. A perfect example of that would be your continuous assertion that I somehow said the fans don't have a right to express themselves, which I explicitly have said was their right. That's a strawman.

Incorrect.
That is the idiotic internet version.
The origin of the phrase goes back into the English justice system, professional prejures (IE LIARS) would place a stalk of straw in their shoes, as their "badge" of office.
They could be counted on to say anything to support a postion, if the price is right.
These "men of Straw" would loiter near court houses, and they came to be known as strawmen, as were their testimony.
That is the CORRECT definition, and your welcome for that bit of information.

I should hope not, since a silent protest is hardly indicative of excessive anger issues.

A protest based on a postion of someone who hardly knows the world yet, but believes she is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.
Amazing.

Let's see...for the SIXTH time...etc., etc., ad naseum.

You don't need to keep doing this Boris.
I find it tedious also.
Let us say, you see it your way, and I see it mine, and leave it thus.

Can you do that?

I certainly can, because I believe in your right to express yourself, I fought for it once.

The question is, will you show ME the same courtesy.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by monkspider
Chris- The views you espouse are an de facto shutdown of free speech, since you argue that dissidents who protest publicly are subject to whatever means of verbal assault people choose to attack them with, that essentially shuts down the ability to protest publicly. As I said earlier, what is the use of having the right to freedom of speech if you are too afraid to actually use it? You are placing a right to babarism over the right to free speech

Your attempting to limit the speech of others Monk.

You don't like the shouting.

So they should not be allowed?

By that token, they don't like the turn away.

That should not be allowed?

It can't be either/or, it most be BOTH or free speech means NOTHING.

That's why you have to allow obnoxious Nazi rallies as well as glorious peace marches like Dr King's.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Having the right to free speech is irrelevent when one is too frightened of the consequences of actually using it.

The fact is that speech has consequences and you must be prepared to deal with those consequences. When the KKK marches down the street and burns crosses, they have to deal with the yells and anger of black people that live in that area. I'm sure the KKK would like unfettered access to streets and be able to burn crosses with blacks just standing on the sidewalks, being silent, but that is taking away the free speech of blacks!

The right to dissent ALWAYS carries with it the right to dissent against that dissent. If you can't handle the dissent to your views, then perhaps you shouldn't be making the point in such an inflamatory way. Like Dissident said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

What it amounts to is that you think the free speech of the girl is worth more than the free speech of the marines.

[SpencerH]

Civil disobedience is supposed to provoke a reaction. Thats her intent, just as with Tommie Smith and Juan Carlos in 68, and as far as I'm concerned, thats great.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Where does "quality" come into it?
Who appointed YOU the arbiter of what is "quality" and what isn't?
Mighty big shoulders you have to have there, Boris.

Gee, so you think that, say, spitting on soldiers returning from Vietnam is qualitatively the same form of protest as Gandhi going on a hunger strike?

Who said anything about me being an arbiter? Another strawman (see below)! All I did was state an opinion as to which form of protest I happen to find repugnant. That isn't establishing myself as an arbiter of anything.

A whole arena full of people?
Why should I take the opinion of a college girl as to the state of the nation?

Why should anyone listen to anyone's opinion, then? I don't see why she's not as qualified as you are to make a statement as to what she believes is right. That is, after all, what a protest is about.

"Proper".
Again, I see this.
Who are YOU to say what is "proper"?

Uh, I'm a person in this society? Everyone has a right to express an opinion on what they think is or isn't proper, Chris. Duh. Unless you exist in an amoral universe all on your own, our entire existence is in large part based on making moral judgments. You seem to be very confused, however, between the difference of stating an opinion on what is proper and dictating to others how to act. The first I did, the second I certainly did not.

Again, your trying to impress YOUR set of values on others, your being judgemental.

Are you just making up an argument in your head? This has gotten absurd. Show me once where I impressed my values on others. I simply stated my values. That isn't the same as trying to force others to accept them. Again, you seem to not be able to tell the difference between argument and coercion.

To take the postion that they are automatically wrong if YOU don't appove is hardly free speech, now is it?

YES it is. Why? Because no where did I ever say "they can't say that!" I simply stated an opinion that how they stated their opinions--not even the opinions--was crass and morally repugnant. Your objections to my stating an opinion seems far more repressive of speech than anything I've states so far in this thread. Can't I have an opinion on what kind of protest I deem to be repugnant?

For the fifth time, your opinion is simply YOUR opinion, just as mine is mine.
I don't tell you how to protest, why should you be able to tell others how to?

You're like a brick wall! How could you have not yet comprehended the very simple and explicitly stated fact that I was NOT stating anything other than an opinion? I didn't tell people how to protest, I stated an opinion on what kind of behavior I find more objectionable. If you can't tell the difference...

Again, your setting yourself up to be who decides what's allowed and what isn't.
In other words, yadda yadda yadda.

AGAIN, No I am not. You aren't reading what I wrote, you're reading something esle entirely. I wonder if you have a brain disorder whereby the text on the screen magically transforms itself in your head into a different bunch of words. For the upteenth time, I set myself up as nothing. I made a moral judgment. Unless you're telling me you don't make moral judgments and it's wrong to do so...

That's quite small minded.
I won't go into why, but I'm sure if you thought about it, you might understand that most people have a deep emotional attachment to the United states, and the flag that represents it.

I understand that. That does not rationalize aggressive, "infuriated" behavior against those who don't share the same attachment. Such behavior is unbalanced, period. Now, that's my opinion, so don't go thinking I'm forcing anything on anyone (which I guess I now must add as a caveat to everything addressed to you in the future?).

You may be able to airily piss on it, others might get angry.

Surely you aren't equating this girl's act of silent protest to urinating on a flag? See, here's that qualitative difference of protesting thing.

I would put forth that you sir, should seek mental help, in sensitivity training as to the feelings of others.
You seem to have a view of "It doesn't bother me, why should it bother you?"

Another strawman. I never said that it shouldn't bother people. The question is how they react when they are bothered. If someone is bothered and says "Ya know, I disagree with that, here's why..." that's rational, respectful and appropriate. If someone gets "infuriated" and shouts at the person to get out of the country and jeers them, that's irrational, repugnant and inappropriate (insert caveat here). When someone gets irrationally angry over something, I think they should seek mental help. I've often recommended this to you, as you will recall.

That is quite egotiscal world view,
And in case you missed it, I said "seems", as meaning that's the immpression you give me.
I may be 100% wrong, but that's the ideas your words convey.

I must not be the only one who missed it, because no where in your post did you say "seems":

A total cop-out of a comment.
Anyone that doesn't protest the way YOU appove of needs mental heath.

Nope, no "seems" there. Is this your magically-changing text again?

The inability to understand other's emotions is an emotional disorder.
I suggest you look into this for yourself.

I think the inability to differentiate between someone stating an opinion and dictating what others should do is a mental disorder, actually. I suggest you look into that one, mmmkay?

You often seem to enjoy a cut and thrust into someone.
I'm not trying to insult you Boris, but you really should consider what I say here.

As in every ***-for-tat exchange we've had, Chris, you were the first to go into negative insults (referring to those on the other side as acting like "hypocritical jackasses" is going to start these kinds of things, dear boy). So don't try to give me a lecture on "cut and thrusts." As I've said before, if you start the negativity pebble-throwing, I'm happy to fire back with boulders.

Have to correct you here.
Incorrect.
That is the idiotic internet version.

Oh really? So, tell me, do you think then that Webster's has been corrputed into giving the "idiotic internet version" as a definition?

Straw man 1 SCARECROW 2 a person of little importance; nonentity 3 a weak argument or opposing view set up by a politician, debater, etc. so that he may attack it and gain an easy, showy victory 4 a person used to disguise another's intentions, activities, etc. blind

That's the total entry. Now, maybe in that fictitious 1928 limited edition dictionary you ahve there it gives an alternate definition, but we already established how reliable that tome was. Once again, you have no clue what you're talking about.

The origin of the phrase goes back into the English justice system, professional prejures (IE LIARS) would place a stalk of straw in their shoes, as their "badge" of office.
They could be counted on to say anything to support a postion, if the price is right.
These "men of Straw" would loiter near court houses, and they came to be known as strawmen, as were their testimony.
That is the CORRECT definition, and your welcome for that bit of information.

Where did you come up with that load of nonsense? Was it made up on the spot, or what?

Of course, as everyone knows, the real meaning comes from a straw dummy, like that used in combat training, that is easily knocked down. At any rate, your hokey definition above STILL doesn't make any sense in the context of the post! This is starting to be comedy...

I am curious, however, why you stressed "LIAR." Are you implying I've lied about something? If so, please let me know, I'd just LOVE to hear it.

A protest based on a postion of someone who hardly knows the world yet, but believes she is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.

Ultimate arbiter? Where in the hell are you getting this? I can't believe you are so inept in your thought processes that you actually think that stating an opinion is somehow asserting one is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. Do you just like to use the word "arbiter" a lot, without understanding its meaning or proper use? That's the only explanation I can think of.

So can no one express an opinion without them de facto becoming an "arbiter," Chris? Should no one's opinion matter unless they are some sort of official or hold some sort of power?

You don't need to keep doing this Boris.
I find it tedious also..

Good, so you can leave it at this.

Let us say, you see it your way, and I see it mine, and leave it thus.

Can you do that?

I certainly can, because I believe in your right to express yourself, I fought for it once.

The question is, will you show ME the same courtesy.

Oh brother. Give me a break. Show me ONCE where I said you didn't have a right to express yourself. For the last time, arguing with someone doesn't equal trying to silence them, Chris. It's a rather easy concept.

As I've said... from the beginning... people have a right to express themselves however they choose. That also means I can express my disdain for their methods of expression, which does not equate to trying to prevent those methods. Is that clear? Simple and easy. If you had understood this from the beginning (like when I first stated it), maybe you'd have saved us this agonizingly stupid argument.

[monkspider]

Poor Chris.
In all honesty, I think we would take your arguements more seriously here if you didn't always try to flame, insult, antagonize, etc. everyone who has a different viewpoint than you.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Civil disobedience is supposed to provoke a reaction. Thats her intent, just as with Tommie Smith and Juan Carlos in 68, and as far as I'm concerned, thats great.

What she did is not civil disobidience. I see no law that one must face the flag whent he anthem is played. She made silent gesture. What I find so distasteful is that those that disagree, instead of replying with their own silent gestures of support for the flag, go out an insult an berate this girl. Do they have the right to do so? Yes, but they are also boorish jerks who wish to stamp out disagreement. I do see using ones rights to try to intimidate others from exercising their own to be a plus: there is a reason most democracies self destruct, and that is when one uses their "rights" to stiffle others.

As I have said twice already: want to make your own satement? Buy a flag and wave it proudly, without screaming at someone else.

But I guess that type of decorum can't be expected from some people.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap
As I have said twice already: want to amke your pown satement? Buy a *** and wave it proudly

Careful, we bruise.

[GePap]

Woops, sorry

Will edit the statement. Me and my poor spelling when I type fast....

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap
Woops, sorry

Will edit the statement. Me and my poor spelling when I type fast....

No worries...but might want to fix this, too:

I do see using ones rights to try to intimidate others from exercising their own to be a plus: there is a reason most democracies self destruct, and that is when one uses their "rights" to stiffle others.

I assume you meant you don't see it as a plus...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


What she did is not civil disobidience. I see no law that one must face the flag whent he anthem is played.

I knew I should have edited that to be more explicit. No, its not civil disobedience but it seems to me that its a form of dissent akin to it. Its deliberate purpose is to cause a response (which it does) in order to draw more attention to the (perceived) problem.

[GePap]

I honestly doubt whether this girl wanted this much attention brought up at all: a little, maybe, but to have hundreads fo people screaming at tyou, calling you disloyal? If so, she cou;ld have done somehting confrontational, like worn some shirt with some logo, and not just this gesture.

I loved the question from one of the reporters: "don't you think you are giving support to Saddam Hussein?" ! What planet is this person from?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GePap


I loved the question from one of the reporters: "don't you think you are giving support to Saddam Hussein?" ! What planet is this person from?

The same planet as John Howard, Prime Miniature of Australia. He believes people marching for peace are giving support to Saddam Hussein.

'LOUISE YAXLEY: When hundreds of thousands march in the streets, politicians pause to carefully consider the implications and ponder what's motivated so many to attend a rally. This morning, the Prime Minister blasted the demonstrators, making two serious accusations against them. Mr. Howard told Radio 5DN the demonstrators were giving heart to Saddam Hussein and by their actions, they were cutting the chance of achieving peace.

JOHN HOWARD: They have to understand the consequences of what they do, just as I am reminded by my critics that I must understand the consequences of what I do. I mean, we are all accountable for the actions we take, and people who demonstrate and who give comfort to Saddam Hussein must understand that, and must realise that it's a factor in making it that much more difficult to get united world opinion on this issue, which in the end, is the best guarantee there is of finding a peaceful solution.'

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s788994.htm

Yes, I'm sure peace marches stoked a warm glow in Saddam's flinty heart. The previously subliminal drone of 'if you are not with us, you are against us' is getting more noticeable. The possibility that a multiplicity of opinions might exist on this subject seems to have escaped Mr. Howard.