How do you spell 'asshat'
March 3, 2005 12:50 AM Subscribe
Somebody has some serious issues with foreign policy
I mean, was there really some impassioned professional bumper sticker manufacturer who thought to himself one day, "You know, there isn't a bumper sticker that expresses how I really feel, which is that 'Allah had sex with Mohammad, both had sex with their mama, producing the arab islamic bastard maggots of today.' I must make that bumper sticker."
posted by shmegegge at 12:57 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by shmegegge at 12:57 AM on March 3, 2005
Did you notice the license plate? growabrain has found the archetype of bitter cripples.
posted by Cranberry at 1:07 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by Cranberry at 1:07 AM on March 3, 2005
If I saw this in traffic, I'd love it. It's a moving provocation -- much preferable, IMO, to "Meat is Murder" or "Visualize Whirled Peas" --
And strangley, at heart, the idea that Arab civilization has failed to grasp modernity, or failed at all in any way whatsoever , is none too shabby an observation as far as foreign policy goes . . . a bit jingoistic perhaps, but not particularly ridiculous in context.
But yeah, it is teh funnay.
posted by undule at 1:15 AM on March 3, 2005
And strangley, at heart, the idea that Arab civilization has failed to grasp modernity, or failed at all in any way whatsoever , is none too shabby an observation as far as foreign policy goes . . . a bit jingoistic perhaps, but not particularly ridiculous in context.
But yeah, it is teh funnay.
posted by undule at 1:15 AM on March 3, 2005
Addendum: If you scumbags want a holy war, stop this vehicle is so hilarious I would be tempted to stop the vehicle -- next to a 7-11 perhaps, where we could exchange roll-on deodorant recipes.
posted by undule at 1:18 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by undule at 1:18 AM on March 3, 2005
Let's Roll.
posted by interiority at 1:21 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by interiority at 1:21 AM on March 3, 2005
This looks at least partly Photoslopped. (Which doesn't make it any less disturbing.)
posted by Matching Mole at 2:32 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by Matching Mole at 2:32 AM on March 3, 2005
Oh wow, the humor of there being a bumper sticker that says "If you scum bags want a holy war, stop this vehicle." on a car with a "Disabled Veteran" license plate just hit me. Classic.
posted by shmegegge at 2:54 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by shmegegge at 2:54 AM on March 3, 2005
ugh. that kind of hatred disgusts me.
i hope they are very ashamed.
posted by little_star_above at 3:32 AM on March 3, 2005
i hope they are very ashamed.
posted by little_star_above at 3:32 AM on March 3, 2005
And strangley, at heart, the idea that Arab civilization has failed to grasp modernity, or failed at all in any way whatsoever , is none too shabby an observation as far as foreign policy goes.
The Kalahari Bushmen have failed to grasp modernity. So have the Amish. So have Orthodox Jews. So have Orthodox Christians. So has my uncle. So I don't see exactly what it's got to do with clever foreign policy observations.
But shit, to be honest, bumper stickers bitching about Kalahari Bushmen would be funnier.
posted by Jimbob at 3:38 AM on March 3, 2005
The Kalahari Bushmen have failed to grasp modernity. So have the Amish. So have Orthodox Jews. So have Orthodox Christians. So has my uncle. So I don't see exactly what it's got to do with clever foreign policy observations.
But shit, to be honest, bumper stickers bitching about Kalahari Bushmen would be funnier.
posted by Jimbob at 3:38 AM on March 3, 2005
Someone has (not so) serious issues with punctuation.
As for following the money to the terrorist, he means the guy in the white house who is in charge of making us all afraid (so that he makes money on oil), right? I mean, a terrorist is someone who gains power through fear, aren't they?
END BOLD POLITICAL STATEMENT.
posted by Eideteker at 4:36 AM on March 3, 2005
As for following the money to the terrorist, he means the guy in the white house who is in charge of making us all afraid (so that he makes money on oil), right? I mean, a terrorist is someone who gains power through fear, aren't they?
END BOLD POLITICAL STATEMENT.
posted by Eideteker at 4:36 AM on March 3, 2005
on a related not, but not that i'd ever do this sort of thing (and neither should you, those ridiculous ribbon magnets can be removed from cars, cut to resemble a rainbow (use the longer parts for a pro-homosexual rights message) and put back on. if i were going to do this sort of thing, i'd recommend putting the newly modified magnets on cars who already have the magnets, stealing the old one on the process.
but like i said, i'd never ever do that.
posted by Lusy P Hur at 4:38 AM on March 3, 2005
but like i said, i'd never ever do that.
posted by Lusy P Hur at 4:38 AM on March 3, 2005
Replace "Arab" and related terms, with "Black" or "Jew" and the appropriate stereotypes. Do you still think its funny?
posted by talos at 5:39 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by talos at 5:39 AM on March 3, 2005
What's funny about it is that it's so crazy-over-the-top and childish. I'd like to see Osama dead, too, but O SLIMY BIN ROTTEN? That's just like, what? Are you seven years old?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:44 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:44 AM on March 3, 2005
Replace "Arab" and related terms, with "Black" or "Jew" and the appropriate stereotypes. Do you still think its funny?
Yeah. If I saw a bumper sticker that said THE JEWS ARE THE UNHOLY UNION OF SATAN AND THE BLACKS AND THEIR BUTTS STINK AND THEY LIKE TO KISS THEIR OWN BUTTS it would be pretty funny.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:46 AM on March 3, 2005
Yeah. If I saw a bumper sticker that said THE JEWS ARE THE UNHOLY UNION OF SATAN AND THE BLACKS AND THEIR BUTTS STINK AND THEY LIKE TO KISS THEIR OWN BUTTS it would be pretty funny.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:46 AM on March 3, 2005
Revolting.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:59 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:59 AM on March 3, 2005
Last night I saw a bumpersticker, "My boss is an Austrian Painter"....wtf? I wanted to drive the dickhead off the road.
posted by notsnot at 6:24 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by notsnot at 6:24 AM on March 3, 2005
In a lot of countries that have grasped modernity, this kind of thing would probably lead to a hate crime charge...
Just saying.
posted by sneebler at 6:30 AM on March 3, 2005
Just saying.
posted by sneebler at 6:30 AM on March 3, 2005
What'd be good would be to create replicas of the stickers, with the same fonts and colours, but replace the text with pro-NAMBLA messages. Just stick them right on top of the originals. I mean, after awhile, who even looks at their bumper stickers that closely? It'd probably take him awhile to notice.
posted by picea at 6:38 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by picea at 6:38 AM on March 3, 2005
in complete seriousness, can someone explain to me how this is not incitement to violence?
posted by jann at 6:50 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by jann at 6:50 AM on March 3, 2005
In a lot of countries that have grasped modernity, this kind of thing would probably lead to a hate crime charge...
That was my thought. I mean, I know it's in America and everything, but surely you can't drive more than a hundred yards in that car without being arrested? I mean, the Bomb Mecca one tips it over the line from inciting racial hatred to inciting violence.
*prepares to learn depressing lesson about US legal system*
posted by jack_mo at 6:52 AM on March 3, 2005
That was my thought. I mean, I know it's in America and everything, but surely you can't drive more than a hundred yards in that car without being arrested? I mean, the Bomb Mecca one tips it over the line from inciting racial hatred to inciting violence.
*prepares to learn depressing lesson about US legal system*
posted by jack_mo at 6:52 AM on March 3, 2005
In a lot of countries that have grasped modernity, this kind of thing would probably lead to a hate crime charge...
Yeah, well, some of us live in a country with a written Constitution that protects free speech, even when it is vile. Sorry about your oppressive nanny state.
Just saying.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:54 AM on March 3, 2005
Yeah, well, some of us live in a country with a written Constitution that protects free speech, even when it is vile. Sorry about your oppressive nanny state.
Just saying.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:54 AM on March 3, 2005
jack_mo writes "I mean, I know it's in America and everything, but surely you can't drive more than a hundred yards in that car without being arrested? I mean, the Bomb Mecca one tips it over the line from inciting racial hatred to inciting violence.
"*prepares to learn depressing lesson about US legal system*"
"Depressing" lesson: the First Amendment ain't worth shit if it doesn't protect even those statements we find abhorrent.
Limiting "free speech" to only that which everyone is comfortable with would have meant that Americans agitating for the abolition of slavery, against Jim Crow, or for gay rights could have been banned as well -- those too were despised, abhorrent minority beliefs at one time.
What disgusts me, what truly fucking disgusts me, is that modern day liberals -- among whom I count myself -- all too often support "free speech" only for causes with which they personally agree.
How can you justify telling this moron with the bumper stickers that in a free democracy, he can't display what he truly believes -- but that it's ok for you to display a bumper sticker reading "Gay Marriage is Good"? If you're willing to tell him that he can't say certain things, when will you tell him their are certain candidates he can't vote for?
Why is your right to expression somehow sacrosanct while his is dependent on passing your censorship? Who's the real Fascist here?
To paraphrase Jefferson, his bumper stickers don't pick your pocket or break your leg. So why do you think the State should ban them on your behalf?
Dear god, what has happened to liberalism in this country? Don't you realize that in wanting to ban bumper stickers, you've put yourself in the company of every Comstock and Mitchell Palmer and Ashcroft?
What the fuck? What the fuck? Where is this country going when both liberals and conservatives think that it's ok to ban speech they disagree with?
What the fuck?
posted by orthogonality at 7:07 AM on March 3, 2005
"*prepares to learn depressing lesson about US legal system*"
"Depressing" lesson: the First Amendment ain't worth shit if it doesn't protect even those statements we find abhorrent.
Limiting "free speech" to only that which everyone is comfortable with would have meant that Americans agitating for the abolition of slavery, against Jim Crow, or for gay rights could have been banned as well -- those too were despised, abhorrent minority beliefs at one time.
What disgusts me, what truly fucking disgusts me, is that modern day liberals -- among whom I count myself -- all too often support "free speech" only for causes with which they personally agree.
How can you justify telling this moron with the bumper stickers that in a free democracy, he can't display what he truly believes -- but that it's ok for you to display a bumper sticker reading "Gay Marriage is Good"? If you're willing to tell him that he can't say certain things, when will you tell him their are certain candidates he can't vote for?
Why is your right to expression somehow sacrosanct while his is dependent on passing your censorship? Who's the real Fascist here?
To paraphrase Jefferson, his bumper stickers don't pick your pocket or break your leg. So why do you think the State should ban them on your behalf?
Dear god, what has happened to liberalism in this country? Don't you realize that in wanting to ban bumper stickers, you've put yourself in the company of every Comstock and Mitchell Palmer and Ashcroft?
What the fuck? What the fuck? Where is this country going when both liberals and conservatives think that it's ok to ban speech they disagree with?
What the fuck?
posted by orthogonality at 7:07 AM on March 3, 2005
Most accurate use of the "handicapped" license plate ever.
posted by PlusDistance at 7:15 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by PlusDistance at 7:15 AM on March 3, 2005
>That truck is soooooo getting suicide-bombed.
You mean, s/he is gonna fill it up with Hi-Ex and drive it into some stinkin' peace loving traitors, and then blow up?
And orthogonality, I was under the impression that Western liberalism is a broad church, allowing some form of censorship for the greater good. -- "I do not condone it."
posted by gsb at 7:18 AM on March 3, 2005
You mean, s/he is gonna fill it up with Hi-Ex and drive it into some stinkin' peace loving traitors, and then blow up?
And orthogonality, I was under the impression that Western liberalism is a broad church, allowing some form of censorship for the greater good. -- "I do not condone it."
posted by gsb at 7:18 AM on March 3, 2005
I thought conservatives wanted to ban speech they didn't agree with, and liberals just wanted to make fun of it....
posted by spilon at 7:19 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by spilon at 7:19 AM on March 3, 2005
What disgusts me, what truly fucking disgusts me, is that modern day liberals -- among whom I count myself -- all too often support "free speech" only for causes with which they personally agree.
It bears repeating.
posted by dhoyt at 7:24 AM on March 3, 2005
It bears repeating.
posted by dhoyt at 7:24 AM on March 3, 2005
He has every right to display these bumperstickers just as I have every right to flip him off every time I see him.
If I were forty miles from civilization and had a broken leg, I would crawl to the closest hospital before I would get into this vehicle.
But yeah--he has the right to display his hatred and his stupidity so all the world can see it.
Is this a great country or what?
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:24 AM on March 3, 2005
If I were forty miles from civilization and had a broken leg, I would crawl to the closest hospital before I would get into this vehicle.
But yeah--he has the right to display his hatred and his stupidity so all the world can see it.
Is this a great country or what?
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:24 AM on March 3, 2005
Great catch, orthogonality! As bad as things might seem here in the US at the moment, I have no plans to leave for Europe or Canada. The US citizen enjoys a vastly freer society, and superior social mobility compared to any other nation on earth.
posted by Scoo at 7:26 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by Scoo at 7:26 AM on March 3, 2005
What the fuck? What the fuck? Where is this country going when both liberals and conservatives think that it's ok to ban speech they disagree with?Deep breaths :)
What the fuck?
posted by orthogonality at 7:07 AM PST on March 3
Note that it's usually western european countries that have banned hate speech but continued in the liberal (modern/postmodern) tradition, not the USA. They're doing fine, and their societies haven't quite collapsed under thought control and oppression yet.
Note also that there's a difference between tasteless opinions and incitement to violence, which is where the line was being drawn; not tasteless opinions about a particular topic.
posted by Firas at 7:29 AM on March 3, 2005 [1 favorite]
This country is just a'ight for me, kinda pitchy.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:30 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:30 AM on March 3, 2005
in complete seriousness, can someone explain to me how this is not incitement to violence?
Well, there's the small matter that it hasn't, you know, incited any violence.
*prepares to learn depressing lesson about US legal system*
IANAL, but as I understand it the usual standard is that speech is only punishable (in this context) if it actually does incite violence, or if there is real no-kidding imminent danger of it doing so.
If it could be shown that an angry crowd ran off and bombed Mecca* right after his truck drove by, he could face prosecution.
*They might head to any of the Meccas in CA, IN, OH, FL, MO, OR, TN, or TX, having misunderstood his position...
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:43 AM on March 3, 2005
Well, there's the small matter that it hasn't, you know, incited any violence.
*prepares to learn depressing lesson about US legal system*
IANAL, but as I understand it the usual standard is that speech is only punishable (in this context) if it actually does incite violence, or if there is real no-kidding imminent danger of it doing so.
If it could be shown that an angry crowd ran off and bombed Mecca* right after his truck drove by, he could face prosecution.
*They might head to any of the Meccas in CA, IN, OH, FL, MO, OR, TN, or TX, having misunderstood his position...
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:43 AM on March 3, 2005
oh, here's the answer to my question, in case anyone else is interested...
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Somehow I thought the standard was still "clear and present danger", but it was apparently replaced by "imminent lawless action" in 1969.
I blame poor schooling and insufficient curiosity for my prior ignorance.
Anyhow, carry on.
posted by jann at 7:46 AM on March 3, 2005
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Somehow I thought the standard was still "clear and present danger", but it was apparently replaced by "imminent lawless action" in 1969.
I blame poor schooling and insufficient curiosity for my prior ignorance.
Anyhow, carry on.
posted by jann at 7:46 AM on March 3, 2005
Who's the real Fascist here?
Oh come on. Call me a commie if you like, but not a fascist ;-)
(And my remarks don't have much to do with the state of 'liberalism' in your country, we've never had a precise equivalent of that over here, and I'm much more in the Old Labour mode - yep, I want me that nanny state!)
The case of these silly stickers is obviously not a good example, but I see absolutely no problem with living under a system where free speech is protected with safeguards against that free speech being used in such a way that causes harm to others living under the same system. Ie. There's such a thing - shock! horror! - as good censorship. You know, the sort of thing that prevents folk holding political meetings at which the organised murder of a minority group is encouraged in or demanded of the attendees.
Why is your right to expression somehow sacrosanct while his is dependent on passing your censorship?
That's your American individualism showing, if you don't mind me saying. My right to expression and my censorship have nowt to do with it - democratic consensus among the people against extremes that destabilise the state do, but I'm starting to slip perilously close to the vocab. of the meetings I attended as a teenager here, Brothers and Sisters, so I'd best shut up now before I start raising a clenched fist and stuff.
Also, sorry if my earlier comment looked troll-ish - it wasn't meant to be, just a bit flippant.
On preview: ...superior social mobility compared to any other nation on earth. I think there may be members of ethnic minorities who would disagree with that. (Just as there are in the UK, Europe, of course, we just tend not to lock quite so many of them up in prison, percentage-wise.)
posted by jack_mo at 7:46 AM on March 3, 2005
Oh come on. Call me a commie if you like, but not a fascist ;-)
(And my remarks don't have much to do with the state of 'liberalism' in your country, we've never had a precise equivalent of that over here, and I'm much more in the Old Labour mode - yep, I want me that nanny state!)
The case of these silly stickers is obviously not a good example, but I see absolutely no problem with living under a system where free speech is protected with safeguards against that free speech being used in such a way that causes harm to others living under the same system. Ie. There's such a thing - shock! horror! - as good censorship. You know, the sort of thing that prevents folk holding political meetings at which the organised murder of a minority group is encouraged in or demanded of the attendees.
Why is your right to expression somehow sacrosanct while his is dependent on passing your censorship?
That's your American individualism showing, if you don't mind me saying. My right to expression and my censorship have nowt to do with it - democratic consensus among the people against extremes that destabilise the state do, but I'm starting to slip perilously close to the vocab. of the meetings I attended as a teenager here, Brothers and Sisters, so I'd best shut up now before I start raising a clenched fist and stuff.
Also, sorry if my earlier comment looked troll-ish - it wasn't meant to be, just a bit flippant.
On preview: ...superior social mobility compared to any other nation on earth. I think there may be members of ethnic minorities who would disagree with that. (Just as there are in the UK, Europe, of course, we just tend not to lock quite so many of them up in prison, percentage-wise.)
posted by jack_mo at 7:46 AM on March 3, 2005
one more legal question that I have been wondering about...
can groups bring suit on civil charges of libel, slander, and defamation, or only individuals?
posted by jann at 8:07 AM on March 3, 2005
can groups bring suit on civil charges of libel, slander, and defamation, or only individuals?
posted by jann at 8:07 AM on March 3, 2005
jack_mo writes "There's such a thing - shock! horror! - as good censorship. You know, the sort of thing that prevents folk holding political meetings at which the organised murder of a minority group is encouraged in or demanded of the attendees."
Yes, but that's just masking the symptoms, forcing the "destabilizing" groups underground.
Whenever I hear of Germans banning swastikas, it says to me they're still not convinced they know better than to lapse once again into Nazi barbarity. "We'd better make sure Schmidt can't wave that Hakenkreuz around, or before you know it we'll all be building crematoria and goose-stepping into Poland again."
That is, banning speech only says that your own democratic institutions rest on a foundation of sand, in peril of being washed away by your next military loss or economic convulsion. Is the draw of Naziism (or Muslim-hating) so strong, are your "civilized" views so very uncompelling, that you really fear that some moron's bumper stickers will convinced any significant number of people to reject your "democratic" values?
If so, suppressing "bad" speech isn't addressing the underlying weakness of your system. Better to see the rot on the surface and address the underlying causes of the rot.
posted by orthogonality at 8:24 AM on March 3, 2005
Yes, but that's just masking the symptoms, forcing the "destabilizing" groups underground.
Whenever I hear of Germans banning swastikas, it says to me they're still not convinced they know better than to lapse once again into Nazi barbarity. "We'd better make sure Schmidt can't wave that Hakenkreuz around, or before you know it we'll all be building crematoria and goose-stepping into Poland again."
That is, banning speech only says that your own democratic institutions rest on a foundation of sand, in peril of being washed away by your next military loss or economic convulsion. Is the draw of Naziism (or Muslim-hating) so strong, are your "civilized" views so very uncompelling, that you really fear that some moron's bumper stickers will convinced any significant number of people to reject your "democratic" values?
If so, suppressing "bad" speech isn't addressing the underlying weakness of your system. Better to see the rot on the surface and address the underlying causes of the rot.
posted by orthogonality at 8:24 AM on March 3, 2005
Yeah, well, some of us live in a country with a written Constitution that protects free speech, even when it is vile. Sorry about your oppressive nanny state.
The question bears repeating: If the driver had a bumper sticker saying "the only good nigger is a dead nigger" (in particular, because it is incitement to violence), are you saying that the driver wouldn't be prosecuted?
Note, that I'm not saying that it should or it shouldn't (I agree with orthogonality more or less). I'm asking if it would be, because f.e. (in random) the San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center advises that:
posted by talos at 8:37 AM on March 3, 2005
The question bears repeating: If the driver had a bumper sticker saying "the only good nigger is a dead nigger" (in particular, because it is incitement to violence), are you saying that the driver wouldn't be prosecuted?
Note, that I'm not saying that it should or it shouldn't (I agree with orthogonality more or less). I'm asking if it would be, because f.e. (in random) the San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center advises that:
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides protections for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, regardless of how offensive or derogatory that speech or expression may be. This includes hate speech, the dissemination hate flyers and web content. However, if this speech threatens violence to a specific person or group, it may then be considered a crime.But aside from prosecution, the really interesting aspect of this is how much more lightly anti-arab racism is taken compared to that against any other ethnic group.
posted by talos at 8:37 AM on March 3, 2005
"May you live in interesting times." As potent today as when it was first uttered.
Interestingly, I remember an incident that occurred in my high school during my freshman year. One of my friends, and a fellow ROTC member, was suspended for wearing a shirt that read "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The grounds for the 3-day suspension is that the message condoned violent action.
posted by mystyk at 9:13 AM on March 3, 2005
Interestingly, I remember an incident that occurred in my high school during my freshman year. One of my friends, and a fellow ROTC member, was suspended for wearing a shirt that read "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The grounds for the 3-day suspension is that the message condoned violent action.
posted by mystyk at 9:13 AM on March 3, 2005
The question bears repeating: If the driver had a bumper sticker saying "the only good nigger is a dead nigger" (in particular, because it is incitement to violence), are you saying that the driver wouldn't be prosecuted?
Technically no, as the cause of death is not actually spelled out. If the bumper sticker said "The only good nigger is a dead nigger that has been killed by a christian white man like you so go kill one right now" or just "MURDER NIGGERS", then there might be a case for incitement. At least that's how I'd argue it if I was a defense lawyer for someone with such a bumper sticker.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:24 AM on March 3, 2005
Technically no, as the cause of death is not actually spelled out. If the bumper sticker said "The only good nigger is a dead nigger that has been killed by a christian white man like you so go kill one right now" or just "MURDER NIGGERS", then there might be a case for incitement. At least that's how I'd argue it if I was a defense lawyer for someone with such a bumper sticker.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:24 AM on March 3, 2005
The question bears repeating: If the driver had a bumper sticker saying "the only good nigger is a dead nigger" (in particular, because it is incitement to violence), are you saying that the driver wouldn't be prosecuted?
Yeah, unless it could be shown that it had actually gotten people hurt, or had actually put specific real people in real danger of harm.
He might expect petty harrassment by cops and the state in general, and more vigorous enforcement of other laws, though. As in, he might get frequent speeding tickets for speeds that are usually ignored until they can yank his license, or something like that.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:25 AM on March 3, 2005
Yeah, unless it could be shown that it had actually gotten people hurt, or had actually put specific real people in real danger of harm.
He might expect petty harrassment by cops and the state in general, and more vigorous enforcement of other laws, though. As in, he might get frequent speeding tickets for speeds that are usually ignored until they can yank his license, or something like that.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:25 AM on March 3, 2005
As bad as things might seem here in the US at the moment, I have no plans to leave for Europe or Canada. The US citizen enjoys a vastly freer society, and superior social mobility compared to any other nation on earth.
posted by Scoo at 7:26 AM PST
Is that supposed to be some kind of a joke?
posted by jokeefe at 9:39 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by Scoo at 7:26 AM PST
Is that supposed to be some kind of a joke?
posted by jokeefe at 9:39 AM on March 3, 2005
That is, banning speech only says that your own democratic institutions rest on a foundation of sand
I take your point (I'm not one of those happy-clappy lefties who think everyone would be really lovely if only they weren't oppressed) but I'd say that my political meetings example is more about preventing the dissemination of an abhorrent view to a wider public, not forcing a major movement underground.
Obviously, there's a happy medium to be found between freedoms and the regulation of those freedoms (or, hey, rights and responsibilities, which is much better terminology). Shame no one has actually found that happy medium yet - we can but hope!
the really interesting aspect of this is how much more lightly anti-arab racism is taken compared to that against any other ethnic group.
These things seem to swing back and forth, though, don't they? Wasn't too long ago that you saw 'No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish' signs in the UK, now they'd be 'No Muslims' only we, er, have legislation against that sort of thing now ;-)
Is that supposed to be some kind of a joke?
I really don't think it is, jokeefe. I find it completely astonishing that anyone could think that, but no, it smells irony-free to me.
posted by jack_mo at 9:43 AM on March 3, 2005
I take your point (I'm not one of those happy-clappy lefties who think everyone would be really lovely if only they weren't oppressed) but I'd say that my political meetings example is more about preventing the dissemination of an abhorrent view to a wider public, not forcing a major movement underground.
Obviously, there's a happy medium to be found between freedoms and the regulation of those freedoms (or, hey, rights and responsibilities, which is much better terminology). Shame no one has actually found that happy medium yet - we can but hope!
the really interesting aspect of this is how much more lightly anti-arab racism is taken compared to that against any other ethnic group.
These things seem to swing back and forth, though, don't they? Wasn't too long ago that you saw 'No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish' signs in the UK, now they'd be 'No Muslims' only we, er, have legislation against that sort of thing now ;-)
Is that supposed to be some kind of a joke?
I really don't think it is, jokeefe. I find it completely astonishing that anyone could think that, but no, it smells irony-free to me.
posted by jack_mo at 9:43 AM on March 3, 2005
Scoo, social mobility has ">is declining (nyt). Only South Africa and Britain have as little mobility across generations as the United States.
That said, I <3 the USA.
posted by Cassford at 9:47 AM on March 3, 2005
That said, I <3 the USA.
posted by Cassford at 9:47 AM on March 3, 2005
Optimus Chyme writes " Yeah, well, some of us live in a country with a written Constitution that protects free speech, even when it is vile. Sorry about your oppressive nanny state. "
Make sure you tell the FCC that.
posted by mr.marx at 9:54 AM on March 3, 2005
Make sure you tell the FCC that.
posted by mr.marx at 9:54 AM on March 3, 2005
The funny thing about the Allah-bashing is that this idiot doesn't realize Allah and the Christian god are the same people.
posted by bugloaf at 9:56 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by bugloaf at 9:56 AM on March 3, 2005
Anybody seen any "FREE ALEX PADILLA" bumper stickers? I mean outside of the car impound lot at Guantanamo Bay...
posted by wendell at 10:07 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by wendell at 10:07 AM on March 3, 2005
On a somewhat related note, a good friend of mine was angered by pictures of a full-size aborted fetus displayed on the back of 18-wheeler trucks she's seen on two different occasions while stopped in traffic (LBJ fwy in Dallas, TX). I cited free speech, but she was convinced that some sort of obscenity charges could have been issued against the driver. Is this a common occurrence?
posted by ch3ch2oh at 10:14 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by ch3ch2oh at 10:14 AM on March 3, 2005
Make sure you tell the FCC that.
Listen, my man, I'm as leftist as they come, and I hate the actions of the FCC, and it saddens me that they ignore and suppress the right of free speech, and want only programming suitable for toddlers, but anyone in here who thinks that we should start banning retarded bumper stickers is pretty nuts.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:35 AM on March 3, 2005
Listen, my man, I'm as leftist as they come, and I hate the actions of the FCC, and it saddens me that they ignore and suppress the right of free speech, and want only programming suitable for toddlers, but anyone in here who thinks that we should start banning retarded bumper stickers is pretty nuts.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:35 AM on March 3, 2005
In Minnesota/Wisconsin, there was an instance where a Hmong refugee living in Saint Paul shot five hunters in Wisconsin over a deer stand dispute. There was a lot of outrage from some folks in the two states against the refugee community and one store sold a bumper sticker that read, “Save a Hunter Shoot a Mung.” There were no indecency or hate crime charges filed (nor should there have been), but the store stopped selling them under pressure.
The guy with the Ford in the picture has every right to put these stickers on his car, as O.C. said.
posted by Arch Stanton at 10:46 AM on March 3, 2005
The guy with the Ford in the picture has every right to put these stickers on his car, as O.C. said.
posted by Arch Stanton at 10:46 AM on March 3, 2005
Optimus Chyme: I hear you. I'm just pointing out that the US isn't really the bastion of free speech many americans claim it is.
posted by mr.marx at 11:07 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by mr.marx at 11:07 AM on March 3, 2005
When I see people with megopinionated cars like that, I always get bummed out. I mean, what kind of shitty sense of yourself must you have if your entire identity is based on some idea that can be boiled down to multiple bumper stickers? And that's certainly not a left-right thing, either... I feel exactly the same way about people whose cars are plastered with left-wing stickers.
That said, there's a guy who lives near my office that drives around this shitty old car on which he's spray-painted "STORMY THE LIBERAL SMASHER," and I'd be lying if I said I didn't laugh...
posted by COBRA! at 11:13 AM on March 3, 2005
That said, there's a guy who lives near my office that drives around this shitty old car on which he's spray-painted "STORMY THE LIBERAL SMASHER," and I'd be lying if I said I didn't laugh...
posted by COBRA! at 11:13 AM on March 3, 2005
"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the dark side."
-Yoda
posted by hypersloth at 11:25 AM on March 3, 2005
-Yoda
posted by hypersloth at 11:25 AM on March 3, 2005
Actually, the line is "hate leads to suffering" which is more universally applicable as well as being a lot less cheesy.
posted by COBRA! at 11:31 AM on March 3, 2005
posted by COBRA! at 11:31 AM on March 3, 2005
Since our friend seems to have withered in the blinding metafilter light...
I saved a mirror
Enjoy...
posted by PissOnYourParade at 12:18 PM on March 3, 2005
I saved a mirror
Enjoy...
posted by PissOnYourParade at 12:18 PM on March 3, 2005
*oops, ty cobra!
posted by hypersloth at 12:27 PM on March 3, 2005
posted by hypersloth at 12:27 PM on March 3, 2005
On a somewhat related note, a good friend of mine was angered by pictures of a full-size aborted fetus displayed on the back of 18-wheeler trucks...
Maybe that's what was in the truck?
In my old neighborhood, there was a lady who drove around with a car top advertisement displaying vivisected animals. As a political statement, it was such a non sequitur my only thought was, "Man, what a fucked up pizza delivery."
posted by Loser at 12:47 PM on March 3, 2005
Maybe that's what was in the truck?
In my old neighborhood, there was a lady who drove around with a car top advertisement displaying vivisected animals. As a political statement, it was such a non sequitur my only thought was, "Man, what a fucked up pizza delivery."
posted by Loser at 12:47 PM on March 3, 2005
ch3ch2oh writes "On a somewhat related note, a good friend of mine was angered by pictures of a full-size aborted fetus displayed on the back of 18-wheeler trucks she's seen on two different occasions while stopped in traffic (LBJ fwy in Dallas, TX). I cited free speech, but she was convinced that some sort of obscenity charges could have been issued against the driver. Is this a common occurrence?"
Why was your friend so angered? Is she offended because she's against abortion and sees the pictures as celebrating abortion?
Or is she offended because she's for abortion rights, but does not want to be reminded what that entails? If the later, if she doesn't think abortion itself is obscene enough to be outlawed, how can she call a depiction of what actually happens in a abortion obscene?
Does she discuss preferring obscenity charges against the display of pictures of cattle butcherings while enjoying a thick, juicy steak?
I'm all for abortion rights (and eating meat, and even in certain circumstances bombing civilians) but I don't ask that evidence of the consequences of my beliefs (aborted fetuses, eviscerated animals, maimed children) be suppressed so that it's less of a burden on me to hold those beliefs.
There's a tendency in Americans today to prefer to look the other way and pretend their actions don't have consuequqnces. Perhaps it would be a salubrious slap in the face if aborted fetuses, butchered cattle, military coffins at Dover Air Force Base, and the mangled bodies of Iraqi children were -- just occasionally -- presented to the very public who by their votes and their purchases make all that possible.
But real adults understand that enjoying steak means that somewhere a cow died a bloody death, and that supporting the right to abortion means that somewhere a fetus dies a bloody death. The question is, how many real adults are left in America?
posted by orthogonality at 1:08 PM on March 3, 2005
Why was your friend so angered? Is she offended because she's against abortion and sees the pictures as celebrating abortion?
Or is she offended because she's for abortion rights, but does not want to be reminded what that entails? If the later, if she doesn't think abortion itself is obscene enough to be outlawed, how can she call a depiction of what actually happens in a abortion obscene?
Does she discuss preferring obscenity charges against the display of pictures of cattle butcherings while enjoying a thick, juicy steak?
I'm all for abortion rights (and eating meat, and even in certain circumstances bombing civilians) but I don't ask that evidence of the consequences of my beliefs (aborted fetuses, eviscerated animals, maimed children) be suppressed so that it's less of a burden on me to hold those beliefs.
There's a tendency in Americans today to prefer to look the other way and pretend their actions don't have consuequqnces. Perhaps it would be a salubrious slap in the face if aborted fetuses, butchered cattle, military coffins at Dover Air Force Base, and the mangled bodies of Iraqi children were -- just occasionally -- presented to the very public who by their votes and their purchases make all that possible.
But real adults understand that enjoying steak means that somewhere a cow died a bloody death, and that supporting the right to abortion means that somewhere a fetus dies a bloody death. The question is, how many real adults are left in America?
posted by orthogonality at 1:08 PM on March 3, 2005
Or is she offended because she's for abortion rights, but does not want to be reminded what that entails? If the later, if she doesn't think abortion itself is obscene enough to be outlawed, how can she call a depiction of what actually happens in a abortion obscene?I 'support' brain surgery being available, but that doesn't mean I want to see photos of doctors digging through some dude's brain when I'm walking in the street.
posted by kickingtheground at 2:03 PM on March 3, 2005
Too bad. I just printed a hundred T-shirts of just that.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:07 PM on March 3, 2005
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:07 PM on March 3, 2005
The whole "right to free speech is more important than stopping hatred" meme I get from Americans is confusing. It's a bit like the "right to own guns is more important than stopping people being shot" attitude that people in low-gun-death countries like myself have trouble grasping. Oh well. In this case, if complete, pure "free speech" is just a right that magically improves society somehow, despite tools like this guy, then surely other rights would improve society too? Like the right to take to his windscreen with a crow-bar? The right to ask the men in white coats to come take him away?
posted by Jimbob at 2:08 PM on March 3, 2005
posted by Jimbob at 2:08 PM on March 3, 2005
So you're comparing getting your feelings hurt to hundreds of dollars' worth of property damage?
That's not really fair, I guess. One explanation is that free speech and gun rights are useful for deposing governments if they become totalitarian. At least in theory.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:15 PM on March 3, 2005
That's not really fair, I guess. One explanation is that free speech and gun rights are useful for deposing governments if they become totalitarian. At least in theory.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:15 PM on March 3, 2005
Jimbob writes "The whole 'right to free speech is more important than stopping hatred' meme I get from Americans is confusing. It's a bit like the 'right to own guns is more important than stopping people being shot' attitude that people in low-gun-death countries like myself have trouble grasping."
The idea behind the right to own guns is that, ultimately, personal ownership of guns secures and reifies the right to revolution against tyrannical government (Thomas Jefferson, principle author of the American Declaration of Independence and our third President, actually wanted to write into the Constitution a right to revolution).
The calculation is that protection of liberty is worth the collateral costs of deaths due to gun ownership -- the victims can be said to be among those patriots who "fertilize the Tree of Liberty".
Ultimately, free speech secures those same liberties: it's so important that we be free to criticize our government and its policies that anything that can remotely be construed as doing that -- of being political speech -- must be protected lest the habit of suppressing leads to the suppression of political speech and the institution of tyranny.
Liberty doesn't come free. The cost include, but are not limited to, speech we find abhorrent and deaths from guns.
Part of being American, in my opinion, is agreeing these costs, however high they may be, are not as high as the cost of tyranny.
posted by orthogonality at 2:28 PM on March 3, 2005
The idea behind the right to own guns is that, ultimately, personal ownership of guns secures and reifies the right to revolution against tyrannical government (Thomas Jefferson, principle author of the American Declaration of Independence and our third President, actually wanted to write into the Constitution a right to revolution).
The calculation is that protection of liberty is worth the collateral costs of deaths due to gun ownership -- the victims can be said to be among those patriots who "fertilize the Tree of Liberty".
Ultimately, free speech secures those same liberties: it's so important that we be free to criticize our government and its policies that anything that can remotely be construed as doing that -- of being political speech -- must be protected lest the habit of suppressing leads to the suppression of political speech and the institution of tyranny.
Liberty doesn't come free. The cost include, but are not limited to, speech we find abhorrent and deaths from guns.
Part of being American, in my opinion, is agreeing these costs, however high they may be, are not as high as the cost of tyranny.
posted by orthogonality at 2:28 PM on March 3, 2005
Two interesting links, both graced by Warren Kinsella one, two. Canada's hate speech laws are pretty clearly defined and have been upheld by the supreme court.
It's 20 years later and there is a fair consensus that the laws are reasonable and just. They're in the same vein as e restriction on shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
If I lived un the USA I would be a little worried about such dandies as the PATRIOT I + II. I can't believe that adults named those laws. It's more terrifying that any of my information an American company has access to is subject to them.
posted by anthill at 2:33 PM on March 3, 2005
It's 20 years later and there is a fair consensus that the laws are reasonable and just. They're in the same vein as e restriction on shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
If I lived un the USA I would be a little worried about such dandies as the PATRIOT I + II. I can't believe that adults named those laws. It's more terrifying that any of my information an American company has access to is subject to them.
posted by anthill at 2:33 PM on March 3, 2005
Disabled Veteran... I can understand his anger if he got his legs blown off in Iraq.
But hey, it's just his Point of View.
posted by countzen at 3:36 PM on March 3, 2005
But hey, it's just his Point of View.
posted by countzen at 3:36 PM on March 3, 2005
The idea behind the right to own guns is that, ultimately, personal ownership of guns secures and reifies the right to revolution against tyrannical government
That might have been the case in the 18th century but it is certainly not the case now. If I'm not mistaken Iraqi citizens were allowed to own guns under Saddam Hussein and that didn't take them very far... So the idea that the dead from random crackhead violence fertilize the tree of liberty is misguided to say the least - and I'm willing to bet that the victims of that violence would find the metaphor distasteful.
posted by talos at 4:20 PM on March 3, 2005
That might have been the case in the 18th century but it is certainly not the case now. If I'm not mistaken Iraqi citizens were allowed to own guns under Saddam Hussein and that didn't take them very far... So the idea that the dead from random crackhead violence fertilize the tree of liberty is misguided to say the least - and I'm willing to bet that the victims of that violence would find the metaphor distasteful.
posted by talos at 4:20 PM on March 3, 2005
IANAL, but family members are.
that said, let's remember a number of things about the freedom of speech.
1. The freedom of speech ends where the nose of a court-appointed judge begins. What I mean by this, and what was meant by the original quote (source for it, anyone? I'm too lazy) that I've paraphrased is that there are points where the freedom of speech reaches its limit. However, there is NO clearly defined point. We have documents that tried, as best as their writers were capable, to provide guidelines for interpretation of the law for each individual instance. This interpretation occurs between the legal representatives (lawyers) for each party involved and either a jury of his/her peers and a judge or just a judge with no jury. So in each case the freedom of speech ends precisely where a judge or jury deems it appropriate at the time. Typically we find that judges draw the line at speech that directly or indirectly (within limits) endangers the lives of others. Where the area is simply too gray to make a distinction, at our best we err on the side of liberty (which is to say the side of free speech.)
Hence, the famous saying that the first ammendment does not guarantee the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
2. However, it is also recognized within the law that speech is not always a weapon, nor is it always well thought out. The law has always tried to recognize the right of people to express themselves through hyperbole without being held accountable for every possible misinterpretation of an innocent exclamation. Of course, the argument can be made that we've forgotten this recently and frivolous lawsuits abound, but we'll leave the larger issue of Tort reform at the door for now, if that's ok. For this reason, it is most often not considered a crime to yell "I'll kill you!" in a heated moment even though threatening another person's life is a crime. On the other hand, there is most definitely speech which incites violence, and punishments merited for it. Such speech would include the obvious, like "I want that guy dead. Go kill him." and the not so obvious, like "It would be a shame if something were to... happen to that guy. Like a fatal accident, you know?" But either of those could also be said innocently, which is where the courts come in.
So where does that leave this guy with his hysterical bumper stickers? Well, he could easily be arrested, but mostly likely the case would be dropped. He's an angry embittered old vet who very well MIGHT like to watch or participate in the maiming and killing of a muslim. He could also be a man who feels impotent in the face of a threat and acts out how he can, but would do nothing more dangerous than cover his car with bumper stickers. As positive as most of us may feel about his moral character, our impressions of what he WOULD do based on his bumper stickers hold absolutely no water in court, nor should they. Since we can't know his intentions, no matter how obvious they may seem, we should err on the side of liberty, and let the man rail against the tide, as it were.
$.02
that said, it's still funny. Not funny like "Yeah, jokes about arabs are funny." Funny like Archie Bunker. Funny because ignorance can be hysterical. Funny beause nothing's sacred and humor protects us from the horror of things, sometimes.
posted by shmegegge at 4:52 PM on March 3, 2005
that said, let's remember a number of things about the freedom of speech.
1. The freedom of speech ends where the nose of a court-appointed judge begins. What I mean by this, and what was meant by the original quote (source for it, anyone? I'm too lazy) that I've paraphrased is that there are points where the freedom of speech reaches its limit. However, there is NO clearly defined point. We have documents that tried, as best as their writers were capable, to provide guidelines for interpretation of the law for each individual instance. This interpretation occurs between the legal representatives (lawyers) for each party involved and either a jury of his/her peers and a judge or just a judge with no jury. So in each case the freedom of speech ends precisely where a judge or jury deems it appropriate at the time. Typically we find that judges draw the line at speech that directly or indirectly (within limits) endangers the lives of others. Where the area is simply too gray to make a distinction, at our best we err on the side of liberty (which is to say the side of free speech.)
Hence, the famous saying that the first ammendment does not guarantee the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
2. However, it is also recognized within the law that speech is not always a weapon, nor is it always well thought out. The law has always tried to recognize the right of people to express themselves through hyperbole without being held accountable for every possible misinterpretation of an innocent exclamation. Of course, the argument can be made that we've forgotten this recently and frivolous lawsuits abound, but we'll leave the larger issue of Tort reform at the door for now, if that's ok. For this reason, it is most often not considered a crime to yell "I'll kill you!" in a heated moment even though threatening another person's life is a crime. On the other hand, there is most definitely speech which incites violence, and punishments merited for it. Such speech would include the obvious, like "I want that guy dead. Go kill him." and the not so obvious, like "It would be a shame if something were to... happen to that guy. Like a fatal accident, you know?" But either of those could also be said innocently, which is where the courts come in.
So where does that leave this guy with his hysterical bumper stickers? Well, he could easily be arrested, but mostly likely the case would be dropped. He's an angry embittered old vet who very well MIGHT like to watch or participate in the maiming and killing of a muslim. He could also be a man who feels impotent in the face of a threat and acts out how he can, but would do nothing more dangerous than cover his car with bumper stickers. As positive as most of us may feel about his moral character, our impressions of what he WOULD do based on his bumper stickers hold absolutely no water in court, nor should they. Since we can't know his intentions, no matter how obvious they may seem, we should err on the side of liberty, and let the man rail against the tide, as it were.
$.02
that said, it's still funny. Not funny like "Yeah, jokes about arabs are funny." Funny like Archie Bunker. Funny because ignorance can be hysterical. Funny beause nothing's sacred and humor protects us from the horror of things, sometimes.
posted by shmegegge at 4:52 PM on March 3, 2005
regarding the fetus on the truck:
"disgusting" has never been the yard stick by which we measure "legal." nor should it be.
posted by shmegegge at 4:56 PM on March 3, 2005
"disgusting" has never been the yard stick by which we measure "legal." nor should it be.
posted by shmegegge at 4:56 PM on March 3, 2005
The calculation is that protection of liberty is worth the collateral costs of deaths due to gun ownership -- the victims can be said to be among those patriots who "fertilize the Tree of Liberty".
Goodness me, that's... bonkers. Sorry for not coming up with a more cogent argument, but I'm utterly gobsmacked.
It's a joke I'm missing due to being British, right?
posted by jack_mo at 5:14 PM on March 3, 2005
Goodness me, that's... bonkers. Sorry for not coming up with a more cogent argument, but I'm utterly gobsmacked.
It's a joke I'm missing due to being British, right?
posted by jack_mo at 5:14 PM on March 3, 2005
orthogonality - I didn't think you were a neo-fascist. - And I still don't but maybe its just part of the big American "problem" which in many ways seems to be non acceptance that we now live in the 21st century and that everybody in a civilized society doesn't have to run around with a gun on their hip or a rifle in their easy rider rifle rack.
Other cultures have great difficulty understanding this anacronism. What is it with Yanks and Guns. Its fuck all to do with your rights - that's an excuse.
posted by adamvasco at 5:34 PM on March 3, 2005
Other cultures have great difficulty understanding this anacronism. What is it with Yanks and Guns. Its fuck all to do with your rights - that's an excuse.
posted by adamvasco at 5:34 PM on March 3, 2005
adamvasco writes "orthogonality - I didn't think you were a neo-fascist. - And I still don't but maybe its just part of the big American 'problem' which in many ways seems to be non acceptance that we now live in the 21st century and that everybody in a civilized society doesn't have to run around with a gun on their hip or a rifle in their easy rider rifle rack.... What is it with Yanks and Guns. Its fuck all to do with your rights - that's an excuse."
Look, I personally, have never owned a gun. I don't like them, they make me nervous. I've never shot a gun other than a BB gun. I don't hunt.
But I can't very well defend the First Amendment and ignore the Second without being the worst sort of cherry-picking hypocrite.
And frankly, as we've gotten deeper and deeper into the Bush years, the more I've been concerned about securing the right to revolution against tyranny. Not that I think we've reached that point, but any rounding up of guns at this point would make me far more nervous than the themselves guns do.
posted by orthogonality at 6:13 PM on March 3, 2005
Look, I personally, have never owned a gun. I don't like them, they make me nervous. I've never shot a gun other than a BB gun. I don't hunt.
But I can't very well defend the First Amendment and ignore the Second without being the worst sort of cherry-picking hypocrite.
And frankly, as we've gotten deeper and deeper into the Bush years, the more I've been concerned about securing the right to revolution against tyranny. Not that I think we've reached that point, but any rounding up of guns at this point would make me far more nervous than the themselves guns do.
posted by orthogonality at 6:13 PM on March 3, 2005
Ok fair enough - you know your country better than I do - I only know the blue fringes not the red maw; The urban, not the redneck or cracker country. But there's a problem and maybe the base is in some nostalgic "ideal" of what is long gone helped by an education and news system which doesn't seem to acknowledge the existance of cultures and states beyond your borders apart from Eye raq and Eye ran and the freedom fy folk who used to own half the south. To us outside the walls Amerika seems stuck in its arrogance. The Republicans seem grass root organised and the Democrats are still wondering around avoiding any contentious issues. One animal's got its head up its ass and the other has its head buried in the sand.
posted by adamvasco at 7:10 PM on March 3, 2005
posted by adamvasco at 7:10 PM on March 3, 2005
I must say, you guys have totally sold me on this First Amendment of yours.
I'm so impressed in fact that for my next holiday I'm going to fly to America and hire a Winnebago. Plaster a few choice bumper stickers on it such as "Jihad" "Bomb NY" "God was a pig, Jesus was a monkey" "Kill George Bush". Then tour to country allowing my family to experience this rapturous celebration of free speech that they would have overwise have never encountered in our own repressive country.
posted by Tuatara at 9:02 PM on March 3, 2005
I'm so impressed in fact that for my next holiday I'm going to fly to America and hire a Winnebago. Plaster a few choice bumper stickers on it such as "Jihad" "Bomb NY" "God was a pig, Jesus was a monkey" "Kill George Bush". Then tour to country allowing my family to experience this rapturous celebration of free speech that they would have overwise have never encountered in our own repressive country.
posted by Tuatara at 9:02 PM on March 3, 2005
Tuatara. See, that's the problem with America (I'm American, btw). The people most likely to believe that you should have the right to post those bumper stickers lost the election.
You can criticize our country and it's administration's behavior all you want, but the people trying to argue for free speech and allowing this guy his lunacy aren't the problem with America, and they're not blind to what IS the problem. They're the people who still want to uphold the liberty America was supposed to be a home for.
posted by shmegegge at 9:20 PM on March 3, 2005
You can criticize our country and it's administration's behavior all you want, but the people trying to argue for free speech and allowing this guy his lunacy aren't the problem with America, and they're not blind to what IS the problem. They're the people who still want to uphold the liberty America was supposed to be a home for.
posted by shmegegge at 9:20 PM on March 3, 2005
The whole "right to free speech is more important than stopping hatred" meme I get from Americans is confusing.
Why? The basic idea is that you can express any idea you want as long as you're not harming anyone (and that being offended doesn't count as being harmed).
If someone's speech actually causes harm, they get criminally prosecuted (in the case of incitement) or are liable for damages in a civil trial (in libel and slander cases), or both. If someone's speech doesn't cause actual harm to actual people, why worry about it?
Besides, that assumes that censoring speech actually really and truly does somehow reduce racial and ethnic enmity. Is there any evidence at all to support this?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:27 PM on March 3, 2005
Why? The basic idea is that you can express any idea you want as long as you're not harming anyone (and that being offended doesn't count as being harmed).
If someone's speech actually causes harm, they get criminally prosecuted (in the case of incitement) or are liable for damages in a civil trial (in libel and slander cases), or both. If someone's speech doesn't cause actual harm to actual people, why worry about it?
Besides, that assumes that censoring speech actually really and truly does somehow reduce racial and ethnic enmity. Is there any evidence at all to support this?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:27 PM on March 3, 2005
To bring a somber tone to the proceedings... Right now it seems fairly obvious to me that the people suffering most from our administration's madness are the iraqi people. However, if the current trend continues pretty soon it'll be all the liberal Americans who suffer most. A number of americans (500+) are suffering in guantanamo as we speak. I honestly believe that so long as the rest of the world insists on lumping all Americans into the GWB heading instead of recognizing the schism here that our country will only get worse. There's only so much the minority vote can do.
For instance, without the help of France and other European countries that colonial America received (arms, funds) we wouldn't have defeated Imperial Great Britain in the American Revolution. If the Republican machine keeps churning we may very well have a situation where we need the rest of the world to help the sane members of America regain the country, not necessarily through war, though. Right now it feels like we wouldn't even be heard. We're all just George Bush's Americans in the world's eyes. It's a real problem.
$.02
posted by shmegegge at 9:28 PM on March 3, 2005
For instance, without the help of France and other European countries that colonial America received (arms, funds) we wouldn't have defeated Imperial Great Britain in the American Revolution. If the Republican machine keeps churning we may very well have a situation where we need the rest of the world to help the sane members of America regain the country, not necessarily through war, though. Right now it feels like we wouldn't even be heard. We're all just George Bush's Americans in the world's eyes. It's a real problem.
$.02
posted by shmegegge at 9:28 PM on March 3, 2005
The Republicans seem grass root organised and the Democrats are still wondering around avoiding any contentious issues. One animal's got its head up its ass and the other has its head buried in the sand.
This is true. On the other hand, read up on Canada's gun laws. There's less gun control up there than down here and their percentage of gun related violent crime is comparable to Great Britain's.
It's easy to say that no guns = no gun deaths. But guns aren't the problem in this country. Poverty, corruption, rampant materialism gone horribly awry, Religious Fundamentalism, residual hatred stemming to pre-civil war era, poor public education... these are the problems with America. Help those and something tells me violent crime of all types will go down.
posted by shmegegge at 9:33 PM on March 3, 2005
This is true. On the other hand, read up on Canada's gun laws. There's less gun control up there than down here and their percentage of gun related violent crime is comparable to Great Britain's.
It's easy to say that no guns = no gun deaths. But guns aren't the problem in this country. Poverty, corruption, rampant materialism gone horribly awry, Religious Fundamentalism, residual hatred stemming to pre-civil war era, poor public education... these are the problems with America. Help those and something tells me violent crime of all types will go down.
posted by shmegegge at 9:33 PM on March 3, 2005
Shmegegge, must you make a mockery of my snark with a tri-fecta of well reasoned and thoughtful posts?
I'd better carry my toothbrush in my pocket 24/7 now in case my previous post attracts a Homeland Security bot.
posted by Tuatara at 9:46 PM on March 3, 2005
I'd better carry my toothbrush in my pocket 24/7 now in case my previous post attracts a Homeland Security bot.
posted by Tuatara at 9:46 PM on March 3, 2005
ha. seriously. where did my sense of humor go? I think I need to go re-read all of quonsar's comments before I go posting anything else.
posted by shmegegge at 11:41 PM on March 3, 2005
posted by shmegegge at 11:41 PM on March 3, 2005
Cheer up shmegegge. Think of what the guy's paint job looks like under all that glue. ;-)
posted by Cranberry at 12:29 AM on March 4, 2005
posted by Cranberry at 12:29 AM on March 4, 2005
I'm still laughing at the image of him in front of his computer, a printer loaded full of red and yellow glossy adhesive paper, madly plunking out sticker after sticker of "Allah is a butt." and "I farted on your turban" type bumper stickers.
posted by shmegegge at 1:52 AM on March 4, 2005
posted by shmegegge at 1:52 AM on March 4, 2005
« Older Michael Bolton is going to have trouble getting a... | The Genomic Dub Collective Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by shmegegge at 12:54 AM on March 3, 2005