HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Are radical Islam and Pol...

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 04:28 AM

 

Are radical Islam and Political Correctness stifling/killing free speech?




I've been a weekly reader of Charlie Hebdo for quite a few years in the past.

It was solidly progressive and bitingly anti-religious. Anti ALL religions.

And it was a strong support/relay of all the French anti-racism associations (ACLU-like).

That's why, the bodies of the victims not buried yet, I was horrified by some comments:


• First, when reading here at DU some remarks that Charlie engaged in hate speech

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6054888

Religious caricatures were clearly aimed at the religions themselves, or at their bigots.

I defy anyone on this board to come up with a racist comment printed in Charlie.

Chalk victory #1 for the terrorists: victims get some blame, mocking religion is hate speech.


• Second, Kristof's column in the NYT says roughly Islam was not to blame. Wonderful.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/opinion/nicholas-kristof-lessons-from-the-charlie-hebdo-shooting-in-paris.html?_r=0

Yes, many/most? muslims are peaceful. But millions are ready to follow crazy rules.

It is written in the Quran (and in the Torah/OT) that blasphemers should be put to death.

Chalk victory #2 for the terrorists: Kristof doesn't mention the doctrine problems that Charlie mocked.


• Third and last, the Charlie shooting will be a strong incentive to kill mockery of religion.

Let's remember that no major US newspaper reprinted the Danish cartoons in 2005. Risky.

After this Charlie Hebdo attack, journalists will double up on the PC with personal safety.

Who wants to become the next Salman Rushdie? Or Danish or Charlie Hebdo cartoonist?

Chalk victory #3 for the terrorists: voices critical of religions themselves will be smothered.


Some comic relief to conclude: what the Vatican had to say at the time of the Danish cartoons:

"The right to freedom of thought and expression .. cannot imply the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers."

Here, a 'best of' of Charlie's anti religious cover pages. Hoping nobody will say I'm spreading hate speech.







34 replies, 2989 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply Are radical Islam and Political Correctness stifling/killing free speech? (Original post)
Albertoo Jan 2015 OP
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #1
Albertoo Jan 2015 #2
nxylas Jan 2015 #3
Albertoo Jan 2015 #6
nxylas Jan 2015 #8
oberliner Jan 2015 #17
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #16
pampango Jan 2015 #4
Albertoo Jan 2015 #5
pampango Jan 2015 #7
Albertoo Jan 2015 #9
pampango Jan 2015 #12
Albertoo Jan 2015 #14
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #18
Albertoo Jan 2015 #20
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #25
AngryAmish Jan 2015 #27
cherokeeprogressive Jan 2015 #32
Coventina Jan 2015 #10
Albertoo Jan 2015 #13
Coventina Jan 2015 #15
ismnotwasm Jan 2015 #11
KittyWampus Jan 2015 #19
Albertoo Jan 2015 #21
oberliner Jan 2015 #22
KittyWampus Jan 2015 #23
oberliner Jan 2015 #24
KittyWampus Jan 2015 #26
oberliner Jan 2015 #29
SidDithers Jan 2015 #28
Albertoo Jan 2015 #31
Glassunion Jan 2015 #30
MohRokTah Jan 2015 #33
ananda Jan 2015 #34

Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 04:38 AM

1. I think the all-religion bashers would be better off

focusing on the Wahabbi sect of Sunni Islam when Muslim bashing. They really are a tiny minority. In Wahabbi states Saudi Arabia, only 4 million are followers, concentrated around Najd. In Kuwait they only make up 2% of the population. Qatar, they're nearly half.

I'll bash those followers day-and-night. When it comes to the rest of 1.5 billion followers is a different story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 04:59 AM

2. you vastly underestimate radical values in the muslim world

 

I think the all-religion bashers would be better off focusing on the Wahabbi sect of Sunni Islam when Muslim bashing. They really are a tiny minority. In Wahabbi states Saudi Arabia, only 4 million are followers, concentrated around Najd. In Kuwait they only make up 2% of the population. Qatar, they're nearly half. I'll bash those followers day-and-night. When it comes to the rest of 1.5 billion followers is a different story.


I fear you do not see how many believers buy in the least savory parts of the faith:

Pew Research (2013): Large majorities of Muslims favor Sharia.

Among those who do, stoning women for adultery is favored by

89% in Pakistanis,
85% in Afghanistan,
81% in Egypt,
67% in Jordan,
~50% in 'moderate' Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand,
58% in Iraq,
44% in Tunisia,
29% in Turkey,
26% in Russia.

Pew Research (2010):

84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam

That's just from the fisrt link I found to answer you. Many more dispiriting stats there:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 07:22 AM

3. Religionofpeace.com is not a credible source

It's a RWNJ hate site, and should no more be linked to than Fox "News" or Free Republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nxylas (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 08:23 AM

6. The source of my figures was Pew polls

 

Regardless of the site where I (randomly through Google) found them.

If memory serves me well, equivalent figures were quoted by Sam Harris in 'The end of Faith'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 09:47 AM

8. But those polls may have been misrepresented

For example, they may not all have asked the same question, or the question they asked may not be the one that TROP says it was. I don't have time to do the necessary investigation right now, but I would once again urge extreme caution when quoting that site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nxylas (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:58 AM

17. Here's a link to the Pew site

 

Some of the highest support for stoning is found in South Asia and the Middle East-North Africa region. In Pakistan (89%) and Afghanistan (85%), more than eight-in-ten Muslims who want Islamic law as their country’s official law say adulterers should be stoned, while nearly as many say the same in the Palestinian territories (84%) and Egypt (81%). A majority also support stoning as a penalty for the unfaithful in Jordan (67%), Iraq (58%). However, support is significantly lower in Lebanon (46%) and Tunisia (44%), where less than half of those who support sharia as the official law of the land believe that adulterers should be stoned.

In Southeast Asia, six-in-ten Muslims in Malaysia consider stoning an appropriate penalty for adultery. About half hold this view in Thailand (51%) and Indonesia (48%).

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

It is important to note that this is among those who think Sharia law should be the law of the land which represents about 70-80 percent of the population of the aforementioned countries, give or take (with Lebanon being a notable exception).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:40 AM

16. 75% of Egyptians want religious freedom as well

I think in Tunisia it is 12% DP for leaving Islam, Lebanon 1 in 6, Turkey 5%. - Reza Aslin with the stats

I understand what Wahabbi is. They're into beheadings, Sharia Law enforced through their interpretation, morals police coming to you door.

I wonder if Dave Chappelle & Ice Cube were polled? Muslims are killed by them more than any other believer is, go back to when it began such as the Wahhabi-Egypt war and the founding of Saudi Arabia which they spilled a lot of blood & a lot of beheading to make it possible.

The sect is basically an orthodox right wing version of Islam

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 07:44 AM

4. Pam Geller would agree with you.

Terrorism is terrorism no matter what you call it; whether it is committed by the Taliban, al-Qaeda, ISIS, or Boko Haram, it is all the same. Islamic terrorism pursued one goal regardless of which organization is responsible: global domination by Islam.

Strategies vary. Techniques are different. One group’s methods for achieving the goals may be in conflict with those of another, but they all spring from the same root with the same milestone to accomplish; making Islam the dominant religion in the world.

No amount of political correctness, refusing to call terrorism what it actually is, turning a blind eye to reality, failing to condemn acts of mass slaughter, lying to protect the “victims” of Islamophobia or any other means to sugarcoat the obvious will alter the fact that the United States under the leadership of Barack Obama is in far greater danger because of him than we have been at any time in our recent past.

http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/afghanistan-and-obamas-foreign-policy-weakness-32457/

Radical Islam is evil, just like radical Christianity and radical Zionism. Under different conditions and times one can be worse than the other. No one seriously believes that the vast, vast majority of Muslims, Christians or Jews are terrorists or killers.

As an example, Germans and Japanese who grew up after WWI were taught by evil governments and in tough economic environments that their country and leader were to be followed religiously. They assimilated values of pride in their race/ethnicity and hatred for Jews, Chinese and many others. Germans and Japanese did many evil things during the era that followed.

Today - no one would say that Germans and Japanese are inherently evil people. Why?
Because they never were. Their actions in the past just who how well hatred can be inculcated in people by conditions and evil leaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 08:20 AM

5. Agreed, but the Japs and Germans changed their values

 

Germans and Japanese did many evil things during the era that followed.

Today - no one would say that Germans and Japanese are inherently evil people. Why? Because they never were. Their actions in the past just who how well hatred can be inculcated in people by conditions and evil leaders.


After WWII, the Germans forsake nazism and became a democracy again.

The Japanese emperor had to publicly declare he wasn't a God. Values were changed.

That's what is needed of Islam for a pacific coexistence with the rest of the world.

The suras and hadiths that say that infidels/blasphemers must be slayed have to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 08:54 AM

7. True. It also shows that Germans and Japanese are not inherently evil people which

you might have had a difficult time convincing many people of in the 1930's and 1940's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:05 AM

9. Sting in the 80's tends to make me think that's not quite true.

 

I grew up in Europe with a nagging worry: 'what if the Russian tanks started rolling in?'

And yet I could relate to the Sting song 'I hope Russians love their children too'.

In the same way, quite a few rank and file nazi party members might have been decent.

But their actions became evil because a part of the great Nazi war machine.


Exactly in the same way, I know most muslims are decent, nice people.

The problem is they act within the framework of a crazed ideology they can't amend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:19 AM

12. At this point, I would contend that fewer Muslims "act within the framework of a crazed ideology

they can't amend" than Germans and Japanese did back in the day. There are some (hundreds or even thousands) of crazy, violent Muslims but millions of them are not taking up arms to impose their will on people who do not agree with them.

... quite a few rank and file nazi party members might have been decent.

That is probably true though that would have been hard to see at the time.

Exactly in the same way, I know most muslims are decent, nice people.

Agreed. That is what presents the challenge to us and to all liberals. How do you recognize that "most muslims are good, decent people" while at the same time identifying those within that community who are not?

My guess is the day will come when Muslims are viewed the way that Germans and Japanese are viewed today - as inherently good people who went through a period of being influenced by terrible conditions and evil leadership. I just hope we can avoid the mistakes we made back in the day - like the internment camps for Japanese-Americans in the 1940's or refusing to allow Jewish immigrants from Germany in the 1930's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:25 AM

14. Totally agree

 

My guess is the day will come when Muslims are viewed the way that Germans and Japanese are viewed today - as inherently good people who went through a period of being influenced by terrible conditions and evil leadership.


Spot on. I's add 'and by an evil book', but that's the anticlerical in me.

I just hope we can avoid the mistakes we made back in the day - like the internment camps for Japanese-Americans in the 1940's or refusing to allow Jewish immigrants from Germany in the 1930's.


That would be a minor ailment (even if refusing the jewish boats was a crying shame)

Let's just hope we can avoid all the larger picture that went with those internment camps.

WWIII anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:59 AM

18. This branch of Islam is actually fairly new

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab started in the 1700's, the birthplace is Najd. He was into that convert or die bullshit. Saudi Arabia and one of his followers was Muhammad ibn Saud -- a grandfather of 'House of Saud' that took over Saudi Arabia.

The oil exports gave Saudi Arabia "credibility" and spent their resources funding universities & other religious activities to spread the message which without would really be insignificant today.

It is interesting you mention Russia. Saudia Arabia along with United States (Wahhabis and Reagan/Hoover/McCarthy hate communists) aided the Wahabbi "freedom fighters" who later became "terrorists" in Afghanistan which was a turning point for the movement. Bin Laden & his soldiers when they sent Russia running back over the hills it gave them a confidence that they felt like they could defeat a super power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:06 PM

20. Fairly new? it started with the Banu Qurayza massacre by muhamad.

 

Not to mention Timur/Tamerlan who is estimated to have killed 5% of the world population.

Christians kill much less recently, but their numbers are stagnating.

Muslims are more offensive recently, and their numbers are growing.

I'd be tempted to draw the conclusion religions prosper on violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:34 PM

25. I'm speaking when it comes to who everyone is really about it when they say things "Muslims are more

offensive recently".

Wahhabi certainly prospers on violence, in fact it doesn't exist without it. How does Wahabbi become a "dominant minority" in places like Saudi Arabia & Kuwait? Through a lot of bloodshed a beheadings. It is ironic that ISIS talks about how they want the Ottoman Empire to come back when it was the Wahabbis who were one of the ones most unhappy with it when it existed.

The Wahhabi movement was part of a fundamentalist/revisionist movement within Islam that would lead to creation of the first Saudi State, and its crushing by the Ottoman empire’s Egyptian viceroy Muhammad Ali Pasha.

Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab and the amir Muhammad ibn Sa’ud launched their campaign to reform Islam and consolidate power in Arabia from their power-base in Diriyah. By 1805, the Wahhabis controlled Mecca and Medina, had attacked Karbala and the Imam Husayn Shrine.[1] The Wahhabis also attacked Ottoman trade caravans which interrupted the Ottoman finances.[2] The Saudi amir denounced the Ottoman sultan and called into question the validity of his claim to be caliph and guardian of the sanctuaries of the Hejaz[3] and the Ottoman empire instructed the upstart Muhammad ‘Ali, viceroy of Egypt, to fight the Wahhabis. The Ottoman empire was suspicious of Muhammed Ali’s ambition, and thought that by ordering Ali against the Wahhabis, the defeat of either would be beneficial.[2]
Campaigns
Painting of Abdullah bin Saud, convicted and executed after losing the war.

Muhammad ‘Ali was ordered to crush the Saudi state as early as December 1807 by Sultan Mustafa IV, however internal strife within Egypt prevented him from giving full attention to the Wahhabis. The Egyptians were not able to recapture the holy cities until 1811.[3]

However, it would take until September 1818 for the Wahhabi state to end with the surrendering of the its leaders. Ibrahim Pasha, Muhammad ‘Ali’s son, had taken over the campaign in 1817. Gaining the support of the volatile Arabian tribes by skillful diplomacy and lavish gifts, he advanced into central Arabia to occupy the towns of Unaizah and Buraidah. Joined now by most of the principal tribes, he appeared before the Saudi capital Diriyah in April 1818. With their march to Diriyah plagued by Wahhabi attacks, they arrived in Diriyah in April 1818. It took until September for the Wahhabis to surrender, in part due to Ibrahim’s poorly trained army. Diriyah was destroyed on June 1819, and Egyptian garrisons were posted in the principal towns. The head of the Wahhabi state, Amir ‘Abd Allah, was sent to Constantinople to be executed.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Book&bookcmd=rendering&return_to=Egyptian%E2%80%93Wahhabi+War&collection_id=ef209028d02f1bc43a8cc3c2b17fec99c39c7658&writer=rdf2latex&is_cached=1

Sunnis had the prime territory during the Ottoman Empire but things were very different than the middle east today, for one it was more multicultural. Muhammad Ali is actually where Sunnis & Shia Muslims begin to differ. The situation is very complex, a lot of bad blood and enemy of my enemy type of shit. The United States is actually one of the more violent participants in the region. War went on for nearly 10 years, the government is majority Shia. The Prime Minister started doing things like denying Sunni participation in the new government, he accused the vice president (or similar equilavent) of being a terrorist and brought him up on terrorism charges (some country gave him Aslyum, it certainly reeked of a political prosecution). A member of parliament was shot dead by security forces running up in his house which sparked protests from the Sunni population which started demanding either participation or their own piece of land & government which he brutally oppressed and keep in mind he was allowing the Shia militia to grow.

These circumstances allowed for ISIS to come in due to Sunni tolerance as well as Sunni fleeing. (I'll come back to this -- I have to go).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:40 PM

27. World Wae II was a huge cultural and demographic event for the Germans and Japanese

 

Nothing like that is happening ti Islam outside of Syria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:21 PM

32. Japs? Are you serious? How does one make any kind of argument concerning Japan, and use "Japs"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:10 AM

10. No, "Free Speech" cannot be killed. It is too deeply ingrained in contemporary culture.

Some writers, cartoonists, publishers might get killed, as we saw yesterday, but the institution of free thought and expression cannot and will not be killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coventina (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:21 AM

13. I wish I were as optimistic as you are

 

I heard over the BBC World a report that some academic at some Ivy League U had been preparing a book about religious intolerance.

That book had been intended to carry in its appendixes reproductions of the Danish cartoons.

It was finally scrapped, and the book published minus the cartoons. Too risky.

If such self-smothering of free speech can happen in the land of the free, home of the brave..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:29 AM

15. I won't deny that there are struggles and setbacks. We need to be constantly vigilant and guard

our freedoms.

But the forces of oppression will not ultimately win.
I sincerely believe that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:14 AM

11. No.

Except in places that have laws against free speech, people are going to say what they're going to say. The level of Islmaphobia for instance hasn't been reduced one bit by the actions of radicals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:05 PM

19. "Political Correctness" is a FarRight meme and I reject it outright. Being self aware & considerate

 

of others is a virtue. The Far Right call that "political correctness" and whinge about not being able to spout their hate speech openly without drawing condemnation from others. It's a term that helps them feel they are the ones being victimized. It's a term used by bullies to rationalize their abhorrent and offensive behavior.

Not wanting to see the words "nigger, cunt or faggot" used in an OP thread title on DU isn't being "politically correct" although that very term was used here on DU not long ago when the word "cunt" showed up and a jury allowed it to stand.

Measuring ones words in consideration of others is a mark of someone moving towards intellectual enlightenment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:09 PM

21. Agreed, provided PCness doesn't get in the way of reality.

 

The Charlie Hebdo massacre IS directly related to the doctrine of Islam on blasphemers.

No, it does NOT mean muslims are evil generally.

Yes, it DOES mean there is a problem with the Islam ideology in the modern world.

(and with Christians re abortion. Or Catholics re vaccinations and AIDS in Africa)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:24 PM

22. Should folks avoid words that denigrate Republicans and Conservatives as well?

 

What about calling Bush "chimp" and the like?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:27 PM

23. a sophomoric insult is very different from a bigoted slur aimed at a minority

 

or someone outside society's power structure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #23)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:30 PM

24. "Measuring ones words in consideration of others..."

 

That was the comment of yours I was responding to. Should one's words be measured in consideration of Republicans/Conservatives such as the former president? You aren't saying this consideration should only apply to minorities, are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:34 PM

26. I'm saying not using clearly racist/homophobic verbiage in consideration of others safety

 

and well being is not political correctness.

I guess I could go back to my original post and include a more qualifying statement like "measuring ones words in consideration of others personal safety" but your attempts at making a case in support of a far right meme aren't worth the effort.

A part of the equation is intent and harassment.

ON THIS BOARD FOR DEMOCRATS- WOMEN, BLACKS AND GAY PEOPLE SHOULD NOT FEEL THREATENED OR HARASSED BY THE USE OF HATEFUL TERMS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #26)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:42 PM

29. Making a case in support of a far right meme?

 

I have no idea what you are talking about with that claim.

I am genuinely trying to understand your point and how/if it ties into the actions of the cartoonists.

If your only point is that on a board for Democrats, women, blacks,and gay people should not feel threatened or harassed by the use of hateful terms, then I completely agree with you.

But if you are making a larger point regarding the French cartoonists and what should and should not be considered off-limits for satire and the like, then that is where we may disagree.

I am trying to get a sense of your broader views on that topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:42 PM

28. Yup...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #28)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:01 PM

31. Very nice pic. Great Cover. nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:01 PM

30. I personally have no fear that terrorism will kill free speech. We are doing that just fine all by

ourselves.

In America we are currently killing free speech all on our own. One college student at a time.

I have been away from college for the better part of 2 decades. I recall the college campus of my day being a beacon of free thought, and expression. Today, it's quite the opposite. Students are tried and convicted for nothing more than reading books, peacefully protesting, etc. They also require both students and faculty alike to sign agreements that restrict their constitutional rights. They wrap them in warm little fuzzy blankets that they refer to as "speech codes" or "conduct codes".

They are molding leaders, thinkers, and wardens of our nation's future. It's a shame we are encouraging the unlearning of liberty on our campuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:23 PM

33. "Political Correctness" IS Free Speech.

 

What is referred to as "political correctness" is simply speech critical of other speech.

Free speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:23 PM

34. I would say no ...

... but the reaction to terror attacks can have that effect.

Look at America now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread