• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Take heed, Dubya...

The thing I can't figure out and I doubt anyone can, is what is the point of this thread? America has freedom of speech and Bush is doing nothing to quash it, aside perhaps from some protests where he is speaking and I won't minimize the importance of that. But what the hell does a newspaper printing cartoons prove? Bush had done nothing to stop newspapers from printing anything. They still attack him all they want. The newspapers still write columns critical of Christians and Muslims so what is this all about?
 
Claus, I'm kind of confused. What are you getting at?
 
RandFan said:
Yeah, "...but in a private setting". Do you have a point? I have given you ample evidence that freedom of speech is alive and well in America and all you can do is regurgitate "...but in a private setting".

Is there something wrong with that? {sheesh}
Click to expand...

That "freedom" isn't worth much, if you can only have it in a private setting.
 
RandFan said:
The thing I can't figure out and I doubt anyone can, is what is the point of this thread? America has freedom of speech and Bush is doing nothing to quash it, aside perhaps from some protests where he is speaking and I won't minimize the importance of that.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding.

Bush censoring abortion-related speech

Bush censoring scientific information

Bush censoring scientists

How many pictures have you seen of coffins with dead American soldiers coming back from Iraq?
 
CFLarsen said:
That "freedom" isn't worth much, if you can only have it in a private setting.
Click to expand...
I believe you missunderstood Randfan. He said "I can say anything I want about Bush anwhere but in a private setting." That means that if he is in a public setting he can say anything he wants about Bush. Once he goes in a private setting, like my home or a commercial airliner, he has to abide by the rules of the owner.
 
CFLarsen said:
You have got to be kidding.

Bush censoring abortion-related speech

Bush censoring scientific information

Bush censoring scientists

How many pictures have you seen of coffins with dead American soldiers coming back from Iraq?
Click to expand...
No, I'm not kidding at all. And this is not the subject of your OP. I'm against any such censorship but that has absolutly nothing to do with the newspapers and such. Further your links paint a misleading picture. The first has to do with foreign aid workers.

Anyone anywhere in the united states can speak out against the President or his policies except in some private settings and some extreme examples. I will grant that I'm not happy with some of Bush's efforts on speech. But this does not prove that America does not have free speech. If it were so then the examples I cited before would not exist.
 
RandFan said:
No, I'm not kidding at all. And this is not the subject of your OP. I'm against any such censorship but that has absolutly nothing to do with the newspapers and such. Further your links paint a misleading picture. The first has to do with foreign aid workers.

Anyone anywhere in the united states can speak out against the President or his policies except in some private settings and some extreme examples. I will grant that I'm not happy with some of Bush's efforts on speech. But this does not prove that America does not have free speech. If it were so then the examples I cited before would not exist.
Click to expand...

Wait, wait....

Do you deny that Bush is trying - and in some cases succeeding - to censor?
 
Claus, I respect you very much. But the links you provided are somewhat suspect. And keep in mind here as you read this, that I am NO fan of Dubya. I never voted for him and I think he's somewhat of a buffoon. But the truth trumps my personal views in this case.

In the "Bush censoring scientists" link, the whole story is written without a single line of attribution, and no evidence to back up any of its claims. The whole site is awash in thinly veiled conspiracy theories. The article linked to the word "censorship", and the link takes you to another article which details a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by a private company against an individual. The claims of censorship may very well be true, but accepting what it says on its face, with no evidence to back it up, seems to me to be a bit un-skeptical. The article speaks of "new rules" regarding scientists talking to the WHO...but what are the new rules? Where are they written? Who has to follow them? The reader is left to draw his own conclusions.

The "Bush censoring scientific information" link takes you to a site detailing various government efforts to fudge scientific data to fit the Bush administration agenda, and to put administration-friendly advisors on various scientific boards. While this is reprehensible, it is not infringing on anyone's right to say what they want to say. The right of free speech extends to members of the government, and they are free to distort data all they want. Mind you, I am in no way defending this action, but there is a huge distinction between manipulating data and stacking your advisory board with friendly voices, and saying to individual citizens "You can't say anything bad about the president."

The last link, "Bush censoring abortion-related speech" may seem on the surface to be limiting speech. But what Bush ordered back in 2001 was a ban on U.S. funding for overseas abortion counseling. What is actually a ban on funding is misinterpreted by many to be a ban on mentioning. This is wrong. I also don't agree with this, but it's hardly a gag order. It simply says to foriegn governments "Hey, if you want our money for your health clinics, you can't talk about abortion." Some may make the argument that this is de facto censorship, but I don't see it that way. (It's akin to a grandmother giving a child $20 for his birthday, but admonishing him not to spend it on candy and comic books.) And let's not forget the fact that all of this involves stuff happening overseas.

Sorry, Claus. I hate to shoot down your examples, because I respect you so much. But if you want to show how Bush is restricting free speech in my country, you're going to have to do better than that.

And, just to get this out of the way:

How many pictures have you seen of coffins with dead American soldiers coming back from Iraq?
Click to expand...

I've seen a little more than 300, including one on the front page of The Washington Post. Yes, it took a Freedom Of Information Act request to get the pictures, but they were released.

Even if the pictures of the caskets were never released, how does that infringe on an individual's right to free speech?
 
jlam said:
Claus, I respect you very much.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

jlam said:
But the links you provided are somewhat suspect. And keep in mind here as you read this, that I am NO fan of Dubya. I never voted for him and I think he's somewhat of a buffoon.
Click to expand...

You have to be English. That was the understatement of the year! ;)

jlam said:
In the "Bush censoring scientists" link, the whole story is written without a single line of attribution, and no evidence to back up any of its claims. The whole site is awash in thinly veiled conspiracy theories. The article linked to the word "censorship", and the link takes you to another article which details a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by a private company against an individual. The claims of censorship may very well be true, but accepting what it says on its face, with no evidence to back it up, seems to me to be a bit un-skeptical. The article speaks of "new rules" regarding scientists talking to the WHO...but what are the new rules? Where are they written? Who has to follow them? The reader is left to draw his own conclusions.
Click to expand...

Why have such a Global Gag Rule at all? As the judge said, it may be an extremely narrow view that it will harm abortion speech, but nevertheless, those are the consequences. Shouldn't we (well, Americans) be eternally vigilant when it comes to any restrictions of free speech? You can move a mountain by moving it pebble by pebble.

jlam said:
The "Bush censoring scientific information" link takes you to a site detailing various government efforts to fudge scientific data to fit the Bush administration agenda, and to put administration-friendly advisors on various scientific boards. While this is reprehensible, it is not infringing on anyone's right to say what they want to say. The right of free speech extends to members of the government, and they are free to distort data all they want. Mind you, I am in no way defending this action, but there is a huge distinction between manipulating data and stacking your advisory board with friendly voices, and saying to individual citizens "You can't say anything bad about the president."
Click to expand...

It's not just a question of bad-mouthing the Prez. Science defines our reality. If you are not allowed to speak from scientific data, then others are ultimately controlling reality.

jlam said:
The last link, "Bush censoring abortion-related speech" may seem on the surface to be limiting speech. But what Bush ordered back in 2001 was a ban on U.S. funding for overseas abortion counseling. What is actually a ban on funding is misinterpreted by many to be a ban on mentioning. This is wrong. I also don't agree with this, but it's hardly a gag order. It simply says to foriegn governments "Hey, if you want our money for your health clinics, you can't talk about abortion." Some may make the argument that this is de facto censorship, but I don't see it that way. (It's akin to a grandmother giving a child $20 for his birthday, but admonishing him not to spend it on candy and comic books.) And let's not forget the fact that all of this involves stuff happening overseas.
Click to expand...

It's as much as an economic gag-order as a free-speech gag-order, I'll give you that. And a moral one, as well, no doubt. But if you can't talk about abortion to anyone, then how much discussion do you think is going on in those American organisations? We get the message, don't talk about abortion.

jlam said:
Sorry, Claus. I hate to shoot down your examples, because I respect you so much. But if you want to show how Bush is restricting free speech in my country, you're going to have to do better than that.
Click to expand...

I hope I explained it well enough. :)

jlam said:
I've seen a little more than 300, including one on the front page of The Washington Post. Yes, it took a Freedom Of Information Act request to get the pictures, but they were released.

Even if the pictures of the caskets were never released, how does that infringe on an individual's right to free speech?
Click to expand...

You can't have freedom of speech as an individual, if the press isn't allowed to report what they want, the way they see fit. The very fact that the photos had to be aquired through a FOIA request speaks volumes: Why on Earth would anyone want to hide something that everyone knows happens? Because if you don't see it, it doesn't happen. Visuals are crucial in today's perception of reality. If it isn't on TV, it didn't happen.

It is far easier to ignore something that isn't visual. Images burn themselves into our memories. What do you remember, the sound of 9-11, the written words of 9-11, or the pictures of 9-11?

Remember this? It even made a stamp.

WTC_Firemen_Flag.jpg


And this?

nick_ut.jpg


That picture was a huge influence on American public opinion on the Vietnam war. Don't think for a second that images are not also freedom of speech.
 
Thanks to RandFan and jlam who expressed my thoughts on this exactly and better than I could have.

CFL,
I think, with respect, that your point was unclear. If your point had been that the Bush administration attempts to use government power to promote its views and to use government power to reduce the impact of the speech of people promoting views it disagrees with, I think everybody including the people from the Bush administration would have agreed with you. But the same thing could be said about every government leader in every country that has ever existed.

If your point was that Bush administration messes about with science for political purposes I think most people would have agreed with you to some degree. Scientific American has run two editorials seriously criticizing what they see as the Bush administration's attempts to politicize science. This is an important topic and if you had made it clear that this was one of the things you were talking about there might have been an interesting discussion of that issue.

If you had made it clear that you were criticizing the Bush administration for restricting the movement and locations of protestors in disagreement with Bush administration policies you would probably have found widespread agreement that there is an issue here as to how far the president can go in restricting protestors at his appearances and that perhaps the Bush administration has stepped over the line.

The problem with the points that you seemed to be trying to make was with your example. There is absolutely no restriction on any private media in the US that prevents them from criticizing, satirizing or ridiculing religion, although the only religion that is routinely ridiculed is Christianity. That has nothing to do with any government restrictions against the ridicule of non-Christian religions. I think it has more to do with a widespread notion that ridiculing minorities whether they be religious or racial is bad. I suspect also it has something to with the notion that ridiculing Islam is a bad idea because they seem to be willing to blow people up who do it.

In some areas, the US has more freedom of speech than many European countries. It is inconceivable that laws against the rights of holocaust deniers to express their views could have been passed in the US. The US has long standing tradtions and laws that allow people to express whatever crackpot theories they feel like, without regard to the hurt feelings or even violence that might occur as a result of the speech.

ETA: I should have mentioned while Islam is not often the target of ridicule in the US, it is routinely the target of criticism. The criticism ranges from generalized criticism of Islam often by people that seem to be promoting a Christian or Jewish agenda to criticism of Islam by people attacking the fundamentalist elements in Islam that are promoting violence and restricting the rights of women.
 
Last edited:
CFLarsen said:
You have to be English. That was the understatement of the year! ;)
Click to expand...
I've been to England, but I'm a hot dog eatin' American ;)



CFLarsen said:
Why have such a Global Gag Rule at all? As the judge said, it may be an extremely narrow view that it will harm abortion speech, but nevertheless, those are the consequences. Shouldn't we (well, Americans) be eternally vigilant when it comes to any restrictions of free speech? You can move a mountain by moving it pebble by pebble.
Click to expand...

I disagree that it's a Global Gag Rule. It's a restriction on funding, not speech. The government's position is this: If you want to discuss abortion, that's fine, but we're not going to give you any of our money. It's perfectly within their rights to do that. Of course, not everyone will agree with that, but that's beside the point. It is not infringing on any American's freedom to say anything he or she wants about any subject at all, ever.



CFLarsen said:
It's not just a question of bad-mouthing the Prez. Science defines our reality. If you are not allowed to speak from scientific data, then others are ultimately controlling reality.
Click to expand...
Scientists are free to speak, write, and say whatever they please. The government is also free to offer up its opinions and to try to stack the deck in its favor. I think that it's wrong for the government to do that, but that act in and of itself does not stop any scientist anywhere from speaking up about anything. If you can cite an example of a scientist being "gagged" by the government, I will gladly eat my words.


CFLarsen said:
You can't have freedom of speech as an individual, if the press isn't allowed to report what they want, the way they see fit.
Click to expand...
True. But that's not what happened here. Here you had the government actively tyring to cover up information. Then the press came along and reported on the cover-up. As a result, after a long process, the government came to its senses and released the information it was trying to cover up. To me, that's a wonderful example of how freedom of speech works in this country. If we were in North Korea, the people who reported on the cover-up probably would have been summarily excecuted.


CFLarsen said:
The very fact that the photos had to be aquired through a FOIA request speaks volumes: Why on Earth would anyone want to hide something that everyone knows happens? Because if you don't see it, it doesn't happen. Visuals are crucial in today's perception of reality. If it isn't on TV, it didn't happen.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The government was trying to suppress the information just for that reason. Sure, that's wrong. Fortunately, our system works in such a way that the people who spoke out against this act are still free, and not in some prison somewhere.

Here's the bottom line. If I want, I can get a permit and sit in front of the White House with a sign that reads "Dubya is an idiot who has sex with monkeys!" and as long as I'm not disturbing the peace, I can have no fear of government reprisals.
 
Thanks, davefoc. I should add that this quote:

davefoc said:
The US has long standing tradtions and laws that allow people to express whatever crackpot theories they feel like, without regard to the hurt feelings or even violence that might occur as a result of the speech.
Click to expand...

...is not entirely accurate. In the U.S. Supreme Court, CHAPLINSKY v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), the court found that "fighting words", or any words that would incite violence, are in fact NOT protected under the first amendment.

You can read the case here
 
Freedom of the Press

Is anyone else desturbed by the fact that the point on debate in this whole thread is "freedom of speech", while the example sited in the OP is about "freedom of the press"?
 
CFLarsen said:
Wait, wait....

Do you deny that Bush is trying - and in some cases succeeding - to censor?
Click to expand...
No, I don't deny it at all. It's wrong and I condemng such actions though I can understand why some might think it appropriate.

You can do without the "wait, wait" rhetoric Larsen. I'm more than happy to concede the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom