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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Tue, 01-18-2011 - 4:13pm

<>

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2000
Tue, 01-18-2011 - 8:18pm

This "photographer" advocated torture of right wingers? Then making "ear necklaces" with Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin's ears and Rush Limbaugh and Hannity's. Then Cheney's in the center of the necklace?

My.

Psych eval looking more and more warranted.

Sonny

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Tue, 01-18-2011 - 10:09pm

What is your source?

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2000
Wed, 01-19-2011 - 6:44am

"James Eric Fuller, 63, who was shot in the knee, had told The Post on Friday, the day before his arrest, that top Republican figures should be tortured -- and their ears severed.

"There would be torture and then an ear necklace, with [Minnesota US Rep.] Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin's ears toward the end, because they're small, female ears, and then Limbaugh, Hannity and the biggest ears of all, Cheney's, in the center," Fuller said.

Also on Friday, Fuller stopped by the home of gunman Jared Lee Loughner and told a neighbor he was going to forgive the shooter, The Associated Press said. "

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/docs_upgrade_gabby_condition_LZ3Z2FWj75oEr26HpCeAdI#ixzz1BTrIDuTA
Sonny
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Wed, 01-19-2011 - 7:12am

I think you missed my point. If Palin wants to "make a political statement", then she should be clear about her intented message.

A really good example is the guy who said "Giffords is dead to me". That statement on its own seems quite violent and could lead to statements that others should "make her dead" too.

But instead the author says that he won't make another phone call for her campaign or vote for her in the future. He clarified what he meant by "dead". Kinda like dead phone. He's not going to work for her anymore.

Palin is a politician, or at least a wannabee, so in theory she should recognize that her words have power and that it is important to be clear about the meaning. The more subtle the message, the more ambiguous it is, the more the language leaves to the imagination of the receiver and

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Wed, 01-19-2011 - 7:28am

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Wed, 01-19-2011 - 8:45am

Interesting.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Wed, 01-19-2011 - 11:27am

Psych eval looking more and more warranted.

Whether or not it is warranted comes a distance second to whether or not it can be legally mandated. THAT is a very important lesson to be learned from the shootings. In my state there is no involuntary treatment law, so unless a person is an imminent threat, it is not possible to legally enforce an eval. Baseless verbal threats or comments that would lead one to question another's mental status do NOT justify an involuntary eval.

If this guy had a plan to cut the ears off and string them, that would be different.

This "photographer" advocated torture of right wingers? Then making "ear necklaces" with Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin's ears and Rush Limbaugh and Hannity's. Then Cheney's in the center of the necklace?

Frankly, the comments you are bringing up are peripheral to the events being discussed. This is not a character attack on the photographer or Palin or the Tea Partier. It is, IMO, a discussion of what is and isn't legal in terms of speech. I'm not convinced that his comments are any more or less legal than stuff Beck says. I'm certain they reach a much smaller audience.

In addition, there was no mention of these comments when the eval was originally brought up. That is how the law works. Yelling in the This Week meeting caused a disruption which brought on misdemeanor charges and what I suspect was a strong suggestion to get a

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

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