Freedom of speech threatened?
Find a Conversation
Freedom of speech threatened?
| Sun, 01-16-2011 - 11:35am |
As many of you know, I have a problem with Palin's gun sights and with some of the Tea Party's violent rhetoric. Many on this board have defended Palin. Palin herself has accused those who want the rhetoric toned down of interfering with free speech. At the filming of "This Week" one of the people who was shot twice, but lived, after the Arizona massacre, snapped a photo of a Tea Partier who was saying the it is inappropriate to talk about the vitriol until we, as a nation, have mourned more.
Latest from the board
- Do you trust the Obama Administration??? 9
- It Couldn't Be More Apropos 13
- If we only hear of schizophrenia in the context of a violence... 2
- Gun Control Law Fails 5
- Have we loosened up on Terrorism 17
- Margaret Thatcher Dies of Stroke at 87 3
- Marriage and Politics 3
- New Pope: Does he matter politically? 9
- What's Next for Venezuela after Chavez? 3
- Do you have gun control questions for the White House?
Memeber Support
Visit our Member Support area or browse the iVillage Help forum
| Q: | Where can I change my password? |
| A: | Log in, go to Edit My Preferences, and click the Account tab. Make and save your changes. |
Pages
"At the filming of "This Week" one of the people who was shot twice, but lived, after the Arizona massacre, snapped a photo of a Tea Partier who was saying the it is inappropriate to talk about the vitriol until we, as a nation, have mourned more"
...and this man
The only thing I can say is people like Hitler and
Â
What isn't and shouldnt be protected
The only free speech that is protected free speech is political speech you cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater church or hospital and you cannot incite violence or riots that is unlawful use of "free speech."
How is it that it is legal for a Palin supporter to yell "terrorist" and "kill him" at a political event, but a Arizona shooting victim is not legally allowed to yell "you're dead" and snap a photo at a Tea Party rep who was making a political statement about how other's should not be making political statements.
I'm no fan of Palin but there is no remote proof linking her to this animal in Arizona.
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647
I could give you the whole two wrongs dont make a right jazz but thats a cop out.
he was making a direct threat to another person
I am not convinced. There is very little evidence that I know of but two things seem clear, he yelled or said "You're dead" and he snapped a photo. Was that a gesture to show the speaker how quickly a "shot" can be fired? Or was it a threat of intended harm? Is there any evidence to support the idea that the photographer implied future harm to the Tea Partier?
Again, I don't see the difference between the photographer's actions, the overzealous McCain/Palin supporter's actions, and Sarah Palin's map of people under gun sights.
I am wondering why one results in a criminal charge and a psych eval and the other two are "just fine". What is the difference?
Good to "see" you!
I've seen that map with the targets and the districts. For me the difference is the "target" vs the gunsight and the state/district vs the person. IMO, those are quite different. I also thing the expression "targeting efforts at" is commonly used as a directive. "Aiming" visual gunsights at people's names is, IMO, a threat.
there is no remote proof linking her to this animal in Arizona.
Pages