- Collegian editorial not proper, reasonable
- Murdock challenged over speech issue
- Sex ads a poor way to respect future citizens
- Put-upon media critic
- An idea for ad stickers
- Health care
- Slow security procedures at DIA
- CSU editorial
- Blue Ribbon Commission for Healthcare Reform
- “Ask First Centennial” ordinance
Freedom of speech
This letter has not been edited.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, responsibility, or other people's opinion. Under the law people are allowed to say what they will (within legal limits), but so is everyone else to call that person names, demand they get fired, suggest they fit certain anatomical parts into other parts regardless of size, and more.
Posted by Neal5x5 on October 3, 2007 02:38 PMThis state wants to fire the kid editor at CSU for his F-bomb but will keep listening to Rush Limbaugh and his anti-troop talk and no one seemed bothered by VP Cheney dropping the F- bomb himself.
Posted by Colorado is red on October 3, 2007 03:15 PMFreedom of speech covers Government suppression of speech. A corporation, or employer, has the ability to limit it's employees speech as it directly affects and ties together the employees comment with the employer.
An interesting case, as we all should pay close attention, is this issue with the editorial at CSU. As we are all aware, CSU is a state school and therefore an extension of the Government, which indeed is prohibited from restricting the speech of citizens. However, if policy is in place, such as the use of profanity and so forth, then the employer of the editor may indeed punish the individual that broke policy.
A more interesting case may be found in Jena, as the "white students" indeed (technically writing of course) have their freedom of expression limited and were punished for hanging nooses from a tree branch. A form of speech, expression, was and has continued to be limited, because of the tone, and "hate" involved in these forms of expression, including escalator clauses in statutes.
If we really do indeed enjoy "free speech" the limit based on content is in violation of our First Amendment. Unpopular, or even hate filled speech should be just as protected from Government intrusion as any other form of speech. We all have the liberty to just ignore it, instead of fearing it, or becoming offended. It is not "speech" that is the problem, is the inability of the populace to deal with "speech." That is the true underlying issue, and one in which our personal liberties continue to erode because of other people's "feelings."
What the hell ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me?" Seems like a motto we should promote again, instead of worrying about how someone may "feel."
Posted by Dan2 on October 3, 2007 03:18 PMOne of the most speech regulated employers in the US is the Department of Defense. Congress gave the DoD broad discretion about speech. Before you blame Bush - This occurred just after the Constitution was a ratified over 200 years ago. The Supreme Court has upheld the Military speech restrictions and military members can in fact imprisonment for flagrent disregard of Military Law.
To me it is entirely proper that even a Government agency be able to fire or suspend people who do not follow agency policy or rules. This does not, in my mind, affect free speech. The 1st amendment does not say - go ahead a say whatever you want, whenever you want and there will be no consquence.
Posted by f on October 3, 2007 03:36 PMThe left wants free speech to say whatever they want to yet on the other hand are doing thier very best to censor and stop free speech of those who oppse their way of thinking. Look at talk show host Michael Savage. The lies about Rush Limbaugh.
Randi Rhoads commited a fleony by threatening the life of a sitting president yet the left gave her a pass on this.
The Bill of Rights limits the government in what it can and can not do. However this does not relieve the average citizen from responsibility in thier actions.
Posted by on October 3, 2007 04:20 PMRush Limpboy is a drugged up fat bloviator who lives on lies and the support of the stupidest people in this nation. May he rot in hell.
Posted by on October 3, 2007 05:06 PMPost 5:06 PM
Is this that little cry baby weasel Al Franken that messed his pants when Bill O' Reilly told him to shut his liberal diarrea running mouth non-stop during a debate.
Speaking of stupid, you confuse telling it like it really is with conviction as bloviation.
I think Al will meet you in "Hell" someday.
4:20 said:
"Randi Rhoads commited a fleony by threatening the life of a sitting president yet the left gave her a pass on this."
Big difference here. Rhodes apologized publicly for her lousy joke. Limbaugh has not apologized, and it wasn't even a joke. He just proceeded to smear more.
Posted by on October 3, 2007 06:22 PMThe Truth Spinner said:
"Is this that little cry baby weasel Al Franken that messed his pants when Bill O' Reilly told him to shut his liberal diarrea running mouth non-stop during a debate."
It was O'Lielly that was cryimg and screaming and wetting his panties because Franken caught him lying.
Nothing new there.
Posted by GK on October 3, 2007 06:27 PM"Rush Limbaugh is a..."
"Well Al Franken is a..."
"Oh yeah? Well Bill O'Reilly is a..."
I haven't heard such intellectually stimulating conversation since grade school. Are kids now spending their time on the internet instead of playing outside?
Come on, kiddies. You know as well as I do that if free speech were to be regulated the way the poor, abused, picked on "people for utter and total politeness" want it to be, there wouldn't be anyone left on this website as spokes-persons for Republicanism/"conservatism" today. And the forum wouldn't be fun anymore.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 3, 2007 06:42 PMColorado is red,
“…Rush Limbaugh and his anti-troop talk…”
Limbaugh was not engaging in your so-called anti-troop talk. But I think by now you actually know that but want to convey the lie that he was referring to all members of the military who oppose the war in Iraq.
Limbaugh was referring to a truly phony soldier, Jesse MacBeth, who claimed he had fought in Iraq and earned a Purple Heart when in fact he didn’t even make it past 44 days in basic training. A caller was talking to Limbaugh about how the media migrates to people like Jesse MacBeth. It was at that point in the conversation that Limbaugh used the term “phony soldiers.” Neither the caller nor Limbaugh mentioned MacBeth at that very moment, but Limbaugh did mention him by name less than two minutes later within the context of what his conversation was with the previous caller. He was not talking about soldiers who simply disagree with the war in Iraq. And he definitely was not using “anti-troop talk”.
06:22 AM
“Big difference here. Rhodes apologized publicly for her lousy joke. Limbaugh has not apologized, and it wasn't even a joke. He just proceeded to smear more.”
You’re right. There IS a big difference. Rhodes is a flaming liberal, so she gets a pass. Don Imus apologized numerous times but the left wanted him strung up anyway and he lost his job over his lousy joke.
In the eyes of the left, personal opinions and jokes are perfectly fine…as long as they come from a liberal perspective. When a conservative has the audacity to express a personal opinion the left wants to run them out on a rail, even if the substance of that opinion is completely altered by smear mongers on the left.
Freedom of speech is great as long as it’s expressed freely from the left. Liberals want to restrict freedoms of conservative speech.
Limbaugh does not have to apologize for something he never said. Yes, he used the term “phony soldier.” But so what. He was actually talking about someone who really is a phony, falsely claiming to be a wounded and disgruntled soldier. The only “smear” that has taken place is by people like you who must by now know the context of Limbaugh’s comment, but continue to convey the lies told by the Democrats in the Senate.
You wouldn’t even know about the two words Limbaugh expressed had it not been for the Democrats in the Senate changing the context of what he was talking about.
There are real soldiers who did not wash out of basic training after only 44 days and who have not lied about being wounded in Iraq claiming to have earned a Purple Heart, who have NOT been interviewed by the major media to get their REAL stories, who really ARE fighting and dying for this country. Yet when Democrat Senator John Murtha says those real soldiers and Marines killed innocent Iraqi citizens, calling them cold-blooded murderers, the lefties, both on this forum and in the Senate, remained totally silent.
When Hillary Clinton said to General David Petraeus that she would have to suspend her disbelief to buy into what he said about progress in Iraq, essentially calling him a liar in flowery language and leaving absolutely no doubt about what she was calling a real soldier, the lefties remained totally silent except to applaud her.
But when a conservative makes an accurate comment about a person who really is artificial in the way they presented them self to the media, suddenly the left gets their panties in a bundle.
You ought to know by now that Democrats in the Senate have been calling for what they call “The Fairness Doctrine” as a means to go after conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh. If you don’t see this as a political stunt conducted by the likes of Reid and Harkin then you are really hooked on the Kool-Aid.
McCabe, the taser incident had nothing to do with President Bush. Yet this punk wanted headlines. He got them. Is this what college students are learing? To dis-respect the president of the United States so he can grab so press? He not only should be fired, he should be shipped out of the US. He needs to see how other countries treat such punks.
Posted by on October 4, 2007 01:07 PMMountain Cat, thank you for explaining about MacBeth. He is the complete representative of liberals who are anti-american and anit-military. These liberals will say anything to futher the democrates. The key word is "say" or "lie". They never actually take any action on anything. The dems control the house and senate. And what have they done to help this country? Nothing.
When Rudolph Giuliani was asked why he changed from democrate to republican he repied, "the democrates want to make the US a better place, the republicans ARE making the US a better place." The dems are all talk, except for raising taxes and destroying our military. Clinton was very effective at that.
Posted by Hellfire on October 4, 2007 01:21 PMTo: Colorado is red, "listening to Rush Limbaugh and his anti-troop talk". Wow, are you ever brainwashed. You must be a CSU student. You better start going to class again and stop taking drugs!
Posted by Hellfire on October 4, 2007 01:31 PMMy, my, my.
It does appear that even despite the best efforts of the Republican/"conservative" claque to censor those they don't like, the principle of free speech is still alive and well in this Country anyway.
At leas, it is still alive - and doing rather well, too - up as CSU. The University authorities have "admonished" the young Editor, NOT fired him, as the ranting, raving, right-wingnuts would have had it.
Perhaps, it even goes to show that education is also alive, and doing rather well too. Again, in spite of the efforts of those who would reduce us all to their own status of blind, ignorant, and mindless followers of their particular "great leader" of the moment.
And now, watch them all crawl out from under their rocks to complain about how they're being "persecuted", because they can't manage to force everyone else to cease showing just how regressive and reactionary they really are.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 5, 2007 06:05 AMInteresting OG. Let's see... Mccain/Feingold.....Free speech hit....Both libs....
Who is it trying to bring back the old chestnut. the Fairness Doctrine... an abridgment on free speech... the Libs. so, let's recap.... What group is trying it's darndest to stifle political speech it does not agree with.... Libs.. Joseph Goebbels smiles down upon the libs. They are his kind of peeps.
The dude at CSU knew the policies were against what he was doing and as an employee, he should know that he can be fired for doing this. He does not own the paper and therefore does not have unrestricted free speech rights. If he wants to go out on a blog and that blog allows his speech, he can do it to his hearts content. But, when you are working for someone else's bread and butter, you play by their rules, or face the consequences.
Awww, but you know that. It jsut doesn't fit into the lib mantra... Free speech for us, none for you!
Posted by Dravur on October 5, 2007 07:56 AMMy, my, my. When you cannot defend your position and that of your liberal friends effectively then resorting to personal insults will always do well to make the point presented by Mountain Cat.
A person can always tell when they made a good point about liberals when Old Grouch begins blaming conservatives for the transgressions of liberals.
When someone says something Old Grouch disagrees with he calls it BS, rather than recognizing that it was simply a stance he disagrees with. Since Fox News doesn’t dish out the liberal talking points that Old Grouch has become accustomed to from the likes of Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Matt Lauer and Peter Jennings…the list goes on and on and on…then he calls the news casters on Fox “talking airheads.”
Old Grouch is such a flaming liberal that he doesn’t see the hypocrisy his political friends engage in when it comes to freedoms of speech. I’d bet that although Old Grouch “read” the post by Mountain Cat, he obviously refuses to “comprehend” what the words mean.
Posted by Fan of fairness on October 5, 2007 09:14 AMDravur,
As a "flaming liberal" I certainly find it odd that I have never heard a liberal yet who used that "mantra" you seem to have invented.
Methinks you have just helped to prove my point.
Fan of Fairness,
Same message as above. I'll accept the designation. But, at the same time, I'll still say that your statements about liberals wanting to cut off free speech are nothing but lies.
Your view of the Fairness Doctrine seems to come directly from one of the Right wing-nuts, such as our favorite druggie, Limbaugh, for instance. Hells bells, man! Don't your ever do your own thinking?
So, one set of talking airheads on TV is much the same as any other. I don't get all that much of anything on TV anyway. I watch the 10:00 PM News on Channel 9 locally, mostly for what happened to the Rockies, and what is about the best weather one can get, all else considered.
As to "comprehension": Do you even begin to comprehend the meaning of "fairness" as it apples to political talk, political ads, and political programing, especially in election years? Certainly not from anything you have written here, you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be attempting to fault the "Fairness Doctrine" as cutting off your - or anybody else's - freedom of speech.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 5, 2007 11:54 AMOld Grouch,
Here is some food for thought:
MoveOn.org, a liberal organization funded by George Soros who bashed Gen. David Petraeus and in particular his speech, have attempted to silence a Mom-an-Pop retailer trying to sell T-shirts and mugs on the Internet critical of MoveOn’s “General Betray Us” ad in the New York Times.
The seller is a lifelong Democrat and member of the military. They were upset about the attack on Gen. Petraeus, so the retailer opened an online store called CafePress. All of the proceeds from sales of his items go to the National Military Family Association charity. They made some shirts with the phrases “Move Away from Move On!”, “MoveOn.org NoFriend to Dems.” “General Petraeus has done more for this country than MoveOn.org.”.
Grouchy would probably loudly disagree with the last one in particular.
For having the temerity and audacity to voice their opinion about MoveOn.org the private retailer was contacted by lawyers representing the “progressive” organization. Their chief operating officer, Carrie Olson, sent a cease-and-desist letter to CafePress demanding that the T-shirts and mugs and all other anti-MoveOn.org merchandise be removed from the store.
Olson warned: “We have been alerted to an entire page of items on your website that infringes on our registered trademark, and we request that you remove all items immediately, and ask the poster to refrain from shipping any items purchased on this webpage. We also request that you give us contact information for the company / person who posted the items. This content has certainly NOT been authorized by anyone at MoveOn.org, nor anyone affiliated with MoveOn.”
The claim of infringement of their copyright is a false one. Trademark laws are not in place to allow monopoly right concerning the use of a registered symbol or phrase. Their creation has much less to do with protecting the interests of the trademark owner, but more to protect consumers from being mislead or confused about brand names. Courts have ruled in favor of parodies and critiques numerous times. The shirts and mugs were not created to trick consumers, or even attempt to violate the trademark of MoveOn.org, but were created to present the political opinion of the store owners.
MoveOn doesn’t like the heat they created in the kitchen, and are acting out by trying to silence those who engage in any public discourse against their smear tactics. To liberal progressives at MoveON, if you try to parody them they will hunt you down and sue you out of business. They can compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler, but if they receive a little teasing from a private citizen, suddenly they are not in favor of dissent and freedom of speech.
Now wasn't it you, Old Grouch, who said "I'll still say that your statements about liberals wanting to cut off free speech are nothing but lies."? If so, I can find more amunition to play with.
Old Grouch, there is plenty evidence of speech suppression by liberals in our nations colleges. If a student dares to have a conservative view, something that should have absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the students’ grades, it is not unusual for a liberal professor to give a grade lower than that which the student earned. What that does is intimidate conservative student to keep their opinions to them selves while the liberal professor and other students can have unfettered conversations from the prospective of the left.
Go ahead and express your doubts, and I will provide proof of my point. All you have to do is ask for it.
Mountain Cat,
You are - more or less deliberately - using a Trademark infringement case to bolster an opinion that this is something of a liberal "mantra". That's very much a stretch, to say the least; be it "MoveOn", or any other company. And that's hardly an example of attempting to cut off free speech as such.
So, "MoveOn" has initiated a Trademark infringement proceedings - or its lawyers have threatened one. That is merely a single incident in the matter of Trademark infringement proceedings in general. And, as you point out, yourself, the Courts have held concerning parody, etc. You are attempting to equate the actions of some tort lawyers with what you keep calling a "liberal" form of political action. And, I think you ought to know better than that.
The area is constantly open to new filings; and there are many such going on. "Liberal" or "conservative" has nothing to do with what the companies, or the lawyers, are doing there. And, some cases have held that Trademark laws DO protect the company, as well as the consumer. You go from a particular to a far too wide generalization in your argument, as well as in your choice of "evidence" here.
And, as to your insistence about college grades: Are you attempting to say that anecdotal material is reliable "evidence" of a movement you attribute to an ideology? I've heard this many times before, mostly from those whose grades were below what was expected. A little bit of time taken with the individual usually manages to sort out the quality of class work, etc., etc., upon which the actual grade rests.
On that point: Are your witnesses going to testify as to the quality of their own presentation of their conservative viewpoints? Or are we allowed to ask that? How about the ones for whom every point begins with a slam against the "liberal", either personal, or point of view, or both? They are here, on the blog, recognizable every day and every line of postings. Are you telling me that they are NOT ALSO in the classrooms?
And also on the point: Just what is either "liberal" or "conservative" about . . . let's say, the square root of minus one, for instance? Or whether or not carbon dating is a valid scientific method of establishing the age of materials in a laboratory?
But, go right on generalizing. That's how the basic lie becomes the new "truth", told often enough, loud enough, and long enough; and someone - even a whole lot of people - will believe it.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 5, 2007 08:48 PMMoveOn.org, a liberal entity to be sure, is trying to silence their critics. I think you know that but you are so fearful of losing an arguement that you will try saying anyting to justifying their actions. What a weak arguement by trying to put the blame on tort lawyers!
I'm not surprised.
I don't have the time right now to write out the other examples I can give you in which liberals are trying to squelch conservative speech. I'll have to do that on Monday.
Posted by Mountain Cat on October 6, 2007 08:41 AMMountain Cat,
I have never disagreed with your statement that MoveOn is trying to silence ITS critics. And, I don't disagree with your presentation that they are trying to so do by way of a Trademark infringement suit. That is simply a taken for granted set of current facts.
However, MoveOn IS NOT all "liberals", nor is it more than one single entity among many who identify with the Democratic Party. The actions of ONE do NOT make a generalization as broad as yours a valid premise in logic.
I don't have to "justify" MoveOn's actions, nor do I have to "criticize" them. Their actions are NOT MINE, nor do they affect me. Your personal insistence upon a group's doing something you dislike as being applicable to a whole political spectrum, and ideology, are very presumptuous, and completely illogical.
And, I too, am not at all surprised.
You cast aspersions on a whole area of political thought on the basis of an individual action - also ascribing a motive to that action which is not necessarily there - and then complain when your lack of logic is pointed out. That's quite typical of the Right-wing postings here.
And, insofar as examples be concerned, I can give return examples of "conservative" efforts to silence free speech as well. Numerically they will most probably balance out. BUT! They, individually or in aggregate, do not establish the general premise that such is a basic to either "side".
I showed your presentation to a friend of mine who is a very staunch Republican, and a former teacher as well. His comment: "Give him an "F"; and don't pass him to "Elementary Logic 101 next semester".
That's all there really is to the whole matter.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 6, 2007 01:09 PM