Freedom of speech threatened?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Freedom of speech threatened?
48
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.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-26-2008
Wed, 01-19-2011 - 11:00pm

I find the whole issue disturbing - not necessarily related to Tea Party.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Wed, 01-19-2011 - 9:42pm

Maybe some people think Humphries is reasonable and rationale, but I think he's had a couple crazy rants.

Is this rational? HIPAA laws, medical privacy laws are as blame worthy as gun laws?

Humphries also began by suggesting that health care privacy laws like

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Wed, 01-19-2011 - 8:47pm

The authorities decided that he needed a psych eval based on his behavior.

OK, so we agree on that.

Upon the initial reporting of him yelling "You're dead!", I honestly [was not ] inclined to think on that alone he was needing of such an eval.

Again, we agree.

I do not think that I initially gave statements that indicated that I did.

Ah, I figured that the lack of opinion one way or another meant you complicitely agreed that based on his outburst alone an eval was warranted. My bad.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2000
Wed, 01-19-2011 - 3:03pm

No, his need for a psych eval was not an attack on his character...and *I* did not bring the topic into this discussion, you did.

The authorities decided that he needed a psych eval based on his behavior. Upon the initial reporting of him yelling "You're dead!", I honestly wanst so inclined to think on that alone he was needing of such an eval. I do not think that I initially gave statements that indicated that I did. However, upon learning of his statements to media that he thought torture was appropriate for certain conservatives, and that he wanted to string the ears of some that he is particularly not fond of on a necklace, then yes, I am convinced that he is needing of that eval. I am not attacking his character. I am saying this is potentially a crazy thing, and perhaps the law enforcement personnel knew more details when they sent him for the involuntary psych eval. It has nothing to do with his character. It has to do with his words, expressed thoughts and threats of harm. That aint his character.

Never heard of Trent Humphries before this story was reported. Why is that "interesting"?

I would think my opinion about Fuller aligns with many, if not most, reasonable and rational people. I dont know Mr Humphries, but if he is rational and reasonable, then I am not surprised that his opinion mimics mine.

I read what you referred to as a very biased report on Humphries( I assume that you did not think it was biased in his favor), but failed to see his "crazed rants". Can you point it out to me, or perhaps there are other instances where I might better be able to form that opinion of agreement with you.

You ask if my reference to Fuller's "crazed rants" is not a character attack. No, it isnt. It is a statement of fact. He stated that he wanted to torture republicans and then make ear necklaces from specific high profile conservatives ears after those ears had be separated from their bodies. This is CRAZY and it is a RANT!!! Any other assertion over what this was would be asinine of me to try to put forth.

No, I am not inconsistent. In the first post that I made to you in this thread I told you that I could understand his anger. The man was SHOT. I get it. Here is what I said in that first post to you:

"Can I understand his anger? Yes. However, self governance and responsibility mean that we cannot act on all of our impulses, even if we feel they are justified. If we choose to, then we are responsible for our actions. If those actions run afoul of the law, then we should expect to face consequences"

I see NO inconsistency there. I can understand his anger over being shot. I can understand wanting to tear into someone about it. However, we cant do that. We are responsible for our own actions. He chose to make the statement to the Tea Party guy and to the reporter. Now he is living with the consequences.

I hope that helps you with some of the questions you raised.

Sonny

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Wed, 01-19-2011 - 2:34pm

I havent attacked the character of Fuller.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Wed, 01-19-2011 - 2:17pm

Edited out because it no longer is necessary to correct my previous post with an entirely new one.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Wed, 01-19-2011 - 2:06pm

A disclaimer. Am using my iPhone again. On it, using the Safari browser, there is simply no way to figure out who's writing/posting to whom. Absolutely awful.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2000
Wed, 01-19-2011 - 12:55pm

Interesting. I havent read a thing about Trent Humphries. I had never heard of him. I do not align myself with him. I do not subscribe to or follow his notions, statements or leadership. Interesting how you try to run someone down in response to the pointing our of the crazed rants of another.

I havent attacked the character of Fuller. In fact, I believe that I said I could understand that he was angry, or something of the sort...I didnt go back and look at my previous posts, as I find it too hard in this format and am admittedly too lazy. :-)

Sonny

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2000
Wed, 01-19-2011 - 12:38pm

I agree with almost all, or maybe even all, that you state. However, I wonder...what media source would you think might be UNbiased and free from any partisan slant? From what sources would you have accepted the quotation without feeling the need to offer that description? Can you perhaps give me three specific possible sources that might be in such elevated position in your opinion?

Thanks,

Sonny

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Wed, 01-19-2011 - 11:45am

I know that Trent Humphries, the Tea Partier, is adamant that the only important bit about the outburst from the photographer, Eric Fuller, is that Fuller is crazy and needs treatment. So your comment aligns with his opinion.

But it is really not that simple. Since we are off on a character attack, let's discuss Humphries. He is no sweetie. This man has made really inappropriate comments ever since the attack. He was trying to say the HIPPA laws interfere with public safety at the time that Fuller photographed him. He went on to suggest that he is a victim because he lost a neighbor during the shootings. He is even quoted (not at This Week) saying that if Giffords knew there was potential violence, then she should have hired better protection. This guy, IMHO, is a whack job.

Link to a very biased article that talks about Humphries the week before his This Week appearance:

http://skippy-posts.blogspot.com/2011/01/victimization-of-trent-humphries-and.html

A snip-it:

The most disgusting, horrible and pathetic fetishization of victimhood that I've ever seen

Pages