You don't argue that a person is guilty of a crime for laughing if you don't believe that to be true--unless you want to set a precedent, which would be even worse behavior from prosecutors. The fact that she did other things that may be illegal does not diminish or change what the arguments are.

No, I laid out the principles pretty plainly. But trying to preserve certain principles against those whose principle is destroying all principals is inherently slippery subject matter. We are very conditioned to thinking about things within the assumptions of a closed system. We think about what the law should be and how to enforce it given the assumption that these are the only parameters. Those aren't really the only parameters, not by any stretch. We forget (or never knew) that closed systems aren't even real.

I was going to make a post on the topic of laws about laws (about laws...). That is a structurally similar topic to what we are discussing. But I always come up against people struggling with those types of concepts and so things get bogged down quickly. In trying to avoid that it's better to ask clarifying questions than to just suggest labels like "unprincipled" or "arbitrary".

While it might be somewhat predictable that someone like Hillary Clinton would do something like that (and I am all for having her brought up on charges but not for partisan reasons like you), it's not predictable that she would do that specific thing. It's not right to say Hillary is a bad person so she can't speak. And you wouldn't catch her betraying her official allegiance to acceptable values anyway. She is a devious, two-faced person, like Obama, and there is not much preemptive defense for that. I mean, if someone wants to become a law professor of civil rights, a community activist, and a devotee of Saul Alinsky just create some kind of human Trojan horse sneaking corporate evil into the halls of power then wtf are we supposed to do? I guess we could have looked at his backers, but we (including me) were too busy fantasizing over "hope and change".

I think there has to be a clear indication of imminent ascendancy of the threat to rights before the abridgement of free speech should come into play. This ascendancy does not have to be associated with one particular person or institution.

I have consistently said that he has. In fact you partisan conservatives would do far, far better for yourselves in adopting the leftist critiques of Obama.

Should Obama have been stopped? Absolutely. But the difference between stopping Obama and stopping a David Duke candidacy is that Obama has, in a sense, broken the law whereas there might be no legal redress possible against Duke. There should be a viable legal challenge toward Obama that we should have advanced.

Also, privacy is a lesser right (as rights go) and does seem to somewhat straddle the line between right and privilege, conceptually if not legally. The systemic threat from the surveillance system is still tenuous- it's not like taking lives or the right to vote. The worst thing about it is thinking about what Trump will do with it (or what Hillary would have). It's more of a weapon that can be easily adapted against freedom than an explicit policy against freedom.

The more challenging example you could have used would have been Obama assassinating and American citizen, and his teenage son in a separate attack, without trial. Interestingly, the assassinated citizen was doing nothing more than preaching anti-American hate, so nothing more than what right wing domestic demagogues do here all the time (you have to see blacks as Americans to draw the parallel). If our society wasn't so racist, and we accepted the assassination of Awlaki, then we could just take out, sans trial, David Duke for recruiting and motivating people like Dylan Roof. We could label organizations from which domestic terrorists get their rationale and training as terrorist enemies of the state and start assassinating their members. But that doesn't seem prudent. Gratifying perhaps, but not the right thing to do.

Deuces,

I appreciate the thoughtful response, though the disingenuous characterization of my views kind of limits any ability to have a respectable debate going forward. Though maybe a mildly interesting intellectual exercise for both, would probably just boil down into thought experiments on where lines can morally be drawn and thus less interesting. And again, even that is impossible when you ground arguments in disingenuous falsification of your debate participants beliefs. Best wishes though.

Who knew Deuces and Newt Gingrich had so much in common...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...ties-committee

We're all very pleased about the French result but can we keep that and other unrelated matters/links out of this thread please.

Thanks

Your taking his argument out of context. He was not arguing mere laughter is a crime. The argument is that she was warned multiple times, it was done intentionally and loudly to disrupt the proceedings. Further your ignoring his argument that her other actions "put the case over the top." Clearly indicating the charges are based on not just the laughing. If your making noise intentionally to draw attention to yourself and disrupt those around you it is a crime.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0bb2d08726a91

Did you not read the very thing you quoted?

Also, recall that the jurors did not think she should have been asked to leave, so it is hard to argue that the laughter was intentionally disruptive.

LOL you left out the part where he documented her other actions that "put the case over the top" As previously stated it is a common argument to say all we have to show is X, She did X and a whole lot more. IT does not mean they would have filed if they thought the case was a mere laugh.

As for the Jury, that is why you have a trial. Her attorney argued that the case was only about a laugh. They did not buy that argument either.

I would not say all, you can say most but please do not use all as not everyone has the same thought as you do.

That doesn't change the plain meaning of his words. If he didn't think the laugh alone was a crime, he wouldn't have said it.

See, here's the thing about free speech. It comes with consequences. If you want to exercise your freedom of speech to preach nazi and fascist ideas, you can expect people to react in kind.


https://twitter.com/fivefifths/statu...16978837364736

I'm sure this post will be deleted by chezlaw but maybe it will last for a few hours.

The thing about that bert is that your actions also have consequences. So if you go around labeling people Nazis and white supremacists who are not and claiming its ok to punch them do not turn round and complain when they begin to arm and defend themselves. And im not even talking about Spencer here as I can almost understand the anger he creates but more moderate conservatives and some liberals.

Also take your own advice and realize that by advocating violence against people who hold moderate views that you alienate people and the right continues to grow. Your speech has consequences too remember. Again I know you will be desperate to take me out of context but im not talking about Richard Spencer here.

What moderates is einbert advocating violence against?

I agree with the premise that actually punching Richard Spencer might not be the best tactical play. Mostly, though, I don't think it matters either way.

When I was younger I though Gingrich was the anti-Christ. He's an awful scumbag, a hypocrite, and has a very low character.

But he's not dumb. He's a lot more educated than like any republican coming in on the tea party wave. And he actually worked with Clinton. He's not one of these jackasses who exist only to negate anything Obama tries to do, stupid and ignorant as all hell. I never thought I would see the day when the country would be better off with more Gingrich's in the republican party, but this is sadly true.

I happen not to agree with Gingrich's point there, however. There is a major difference between the Nazis and the Muslim terrorists. There was no diplomatic solution to the Nazis, and they were a real existential threat. The Nazis were the aggressors.

Muslim terrorists are not an existential threat. Furthermore, in the conflict between our country and the infinitesimally small proportion of Muslim nationals who want to kill us, we are the aggressor. We have committed well documented large scale crimes and atrocities against them. So there is promising diplomatic solution to the conflict, a very simple one. We could try not killing them and see if it makes them not want to kill us.

I don't really have interest in respectable debate. My thing is to make a reasoned argument but, at the same time, deride what I see as the depravity of my opponents positions where I see it. I think the world is a bit past the point of agreeing to disagree.

"I think we should launch a war of aggression against a Middle Eastern country because I think the economic boost could trickle down to me in the form of lower energy costs."

"Really? Let's not kill a million people in an effort which could end up costing us trillions with a T".

"No. Kill them. Apache helicopters are rad. USA!USA!USA!"

"Ok I guess we can agree to disagree."

????

False. We can't agree to disagree. Technology drives the stakes too high. Someone's got to move their position or be moved.

It isn't a matter of agreeing to disagree. It is a matter of you being incapable to engage in honest discourse as evidenced by your continuous misrepresentation of positions and volley feeble, baseless attacks.

Then again, my initial critique was that your positions were arbitrary as opposed to principled, so why should I have expected your morality to be any different.

And regardless, the post above would lead one to suspect your comprehension is on par with said principles.

This should become your signature line so as to prevent future thoughtful people from wasting any time with you.

Constantly deriding your opponents is counterproductive. It reinforces their opinions and crystalizes them against modification.

Further, it makes you and your side look unreasonable to outside observers. This has the effect of driving people away from your conclusions. And thus, you do yourself a double disservice.

All of this I'm happy for. Your opinions, while incoherent, are toxic. Your style is certainly toxic.

Good luck, Deuces McCarthy.

As noted earlier he advocates violence against fascists and racists. Which covers, in his view, a whole lot of people - I guess you haven't noticed, but he is constantly hyperventilating and frothing at the mouth. He is out of touch with reality (cf Chicken Little).

Inb4 "cite or ban"

Calm down.

Any moderate racists or fascists specifically?

Why? I debate people who call me names- if they also have something substantial to say on the topic. And if you think liberals complaining about the treatment of the disadvantaged are so harsh, try confronting the fake liberals with their own manipulation and complicity.

Why should I respect people who I think are scumballs? Or why should I fake it? It's not like we are talking about which end of the hard boiled egg should be eaten first. We are often talking about critical issues which ultimately affect who lives and who dies. You think you know better than scientific consensus on climate change? Sorry but you're a **** bag is that is your belief and I'm not going to pretend otherwise when I'm not absolutely compelled so.

I reserve the right to deride scumballs. I reserve that right but, come to think of it, I don't recall even saying anything derisive lately. Can you give me a quote? I think Hasten Dan is just sort of trying to create the impression that I am being disrespectful in order to avoid an actual debate in which he is severely outclassed.

Wouldn't they have to be coherent to be toxic? Which opinion are you referring to and why is it toxic?

What are you referring to? The suggestion that you attack Hillary for partisan reasons? Get over it man. There is no reason to construct elaborate ideological camouflage here (unless your true opinions are ban worthy). When you say certain things (which you can't give up) whatever fake credibility you had will just reset. If Devout1, pretty much the only respected poster in politardia, had one off day of unacceptable positions he would lose his rep. If he came in here one day and was like "You know, maybe voter ID laws aren't unfair." his cool points reset to zero. So you think you are going to pose as an independent or disillusioned liberal and maintain popular credibility with your views?

Are you are wil's thing about "I'm really a liberal but these current liberals are just too much!". Just stop it.

Nobody buys it.

We all know why people who never attack republicans attack Hillary. I

You are just wrong man, but feel free to continue to shill for the establishment corporatists. I just can't entertain you in reasonable debate, Podesta.

Pro Palestinian speech is the largest vector of suppression of free speech

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/sil...-wrong-9971393

You call that suppression of free speech?

Deciding who should speak at a graduation ceremony is massively different than allowing/disallowing students to invite a speaker to their own event.

If deciding who to invite to speak at a graduation event is a suppression of free speech, then nearly all discussions about who should speak at a graduation are attempts to suppress free speech.

If this were flipped, and Ann Coulter was the invited speaker, and many were resisting that, I would not say that removing her was a violation of free speech. College graduation ceremonies are inherently political, and frankly, they are mostly dominated by the left.

This is not even close.

Then again, if there was a pro-Israeli settlement speaker to speak at that graduation, I might consider it a closer case that the balancing side should be allowed on free speech grounds.