Quote :

"It's not about squelching those we don't agree with, it's about squelching those we feel will actually lead to harm. I'm sorry, but I think that citizens, for instance, would not be in the wrong if they tried to stop something like a KKK march. The government should in no way ever be involved in preventing such a march unless it's for safety or other such reasons, but the people should always keep that right."

So people should be able to stop others from speaking and associating freely? Yeah, no thanks.

4/21/2009 11:09:40 AM

they are allowed to. there's no law against it. as we are free to try and silence those we feel are doing harm, others are allowed to stop us from doing so. Note, also, that there are laws against some kinds of speech - lying in court, threats of violence, and slander are all illegal, though some of them are difficult to stop or even prosecute.

[Edited on April 21, 2009 at 12:27 PM. Reason : .]

4/21/2009 12:26:31 PM

This wouldn't be anywhere near as big of a deal if the police didn't shut down the event. I don't see why they didn't just remove the people that were being unruly in public, warn the rest, and let the asshole finish his lecture. He wouldn't be able to run away and bitch then.

4/21/2009 12:34:32 PM

Quote :

"they are allowed to. there's no law against it. as we are free to try and silence those we feel are doing harm, others are allowed to stop us from doing so"

Within the confines of the law. Which usually isn't the case. See this case. The people protesting started to break the law (destroying property), thus "forcing" the police to intervene. The police, instead of, you know, arresting the protesters causing problems, shut down the event/silenced the speaker, which is really fucked up.

4/21/2009 12:40:10 PM

I agree that destroying someone else's (read: not owned by the person you find evil) property is the wrong way of going about things.

4/21/2009 12:51:14 PM

So you condone the destruction of property of someone you disagree with?

4/21/2009 1:28:26 PM

The UNC incident undermined the protestors whole effectiveness. Its been a great boost for fundraising for the side they oppose.

[Edited on April 21, 2009 at 1:51 PM. Reason : a]

4/21/2009 1:51:16 PM

While on the topic of speakers at UNC, Crystal Mangrum is speaking soon.

http://www.dailytarheel.com/news/university/lacrosse-accuser-to-speak-1.1726947

4/22/2009 3:25:21 PM

^ wow

out of morbid curiosity though, i almost wonder what she could possibly have to say...?

[Edited on April 22, 2009 at 3:38 PM. Reason : ]

4/22/2009 3:37:46 PM

Quote :

"So you condone the destruction of property of someone you disagree with?"

I think you'll find that I've pretty clearly said this isn't about people you "disagree with." It's about people who you think are dangerous and need to be stopped. Again, the nazi example is extreme but is sort of on par with what I'm saying. If I had the chance and the balls, I'd definitely destroy Hitler's or Kim Jong Il's property. Wouldn't you? We BOMBED germany and destroyed 2 whole cities in Japan because we thought those countries' governments were evil, did we not? Hell, our military has killed uncountable numbers of people, many times for what I would say are totally unjustifiable reasons, and I'm just talking about destroying property and interrupting a speaking engagement with some rowdiness.

Of course, condoning something (or at least not thinking it's that bad) and actually thinking you'd do it are different. I'm much to old, lazy, peaceful, and boring to ever destroy anything for a cause like that, unless it was somehow going to really save lives or save the world or something.

4/22/2009 4:01:32 PM

To those of you that believe it is appropriate in America to squelch an individual's right to the freedom of speech, please outline in detail how your stance is fundamentally different from that of a facist.

4/22/2009 4:07:13 PM

Well, if you're referring to me, I think I've already answered that question. The government never, ever should be involved in squelching free speech, unless it is something like a direct threat or slander. Those things are, and should be, unprotected under the first amendment.

As far as fascism:

Quote :

"1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality "

If the government can't quash free speech, I can hardly see how you could say that allowing people to stop each other from speaking is in any way fascist. There is no founding principle or any legal ruling, that I know of, which prevents people from stifling the speech of others. Imagine how impossible something like that would be to define and police, not to mention how equally Un-American it would be.

4/22/2009 4:26:54 PM

One has to wonder what that crazy bitch is going to say at UNC and why they thought they needed extra security. Since the only thing that makes her recognizable is her involvement in that case, I can't believe she won't talk about it. And if she make any allegations that counter the conclusions of the case (that she's a lying bitch), then the defendants should sue her into the Stone Age.

4/22/2009 4:49:22 PM

someone remind me why she isnt in jail?

4/22/2009 5:59:37 PM

Quote :

"Crystal Gail Mangum, who accused three Duke lacrosse players of rape in 2006, will speak in the Sonja Haynes Stone Center about “the harsh realities of minority treatment both in the justice system and the media,” according to the event’s press release."

Yeah, making the case that the system is stacked against minorities in the justice system and media, when your perjurous accusations dragged three men through a witch hunt and show trial, of which the prosecutor eventually lost his job for gross misconduct?

Maybe not the case you want to pin your thesis on. Just maybe.

But ah. Reading further...

Quote :

"The speech will focus on legal and publicity issues within the case, but Mangum will not speak about her involvement with the Duke lacrosse team. “This is not going to focus on that night,” Dickerson said. “Instead, we will talk about prosecutorial misconduct and the media’s role in the case.”"

You're not going to talk about your involvement in a case where you nearly railroaded three innocent men. But somehow your experience qualifies you to talk about the justice system?

You're a fucking stripper. Get the fuck out of here.

[Edited on April 22, 2009 at 6:20 PM. Reason : Jesus. >.<]

4/22/2009 6:18:25 PM

Quote :

"It's about people who you think are dangerous and need to be stopped."

So, we can destroy people's shit, as long as we think they are dangerous. Hey, DG, I think you are dangerous, I'm gonna burn your house down tonight.

Quote :

"We BOMBED germany and destroyed 2 whole cities in Japan because we thought those countries' governments were evil, did we not?"

You got it completely wrong. We bombed them because WE WERE AT WAR. Massive difference, there.

Moreover, your stance is equally stupid, because the protesters didn't fuck up Tancredo's property; they fucked up PUBLIC property. And, you've already admitted as much. So, why are you really arguing about fucking up an evil person's property?

Quote :

"This wouldn't be anywhere near as big of a deal if the police didn't shut down the event."

I haven't seen anywhere where it says the police shut down the event. plz to cite. kkthx

4/22/2009 9:05:45 PM

Quote :

"You got it completely wrong. We bombed them because WE WERE AT WAR. Massive difference, there."

We were at war BECAUSE we thought they needed to be stopped. It's hardly a difference - it's exactly what I said in the first place.

Quote :

"Moreover, your stance is equally stupid"

As far as I can tell, I'm not the one using ad hominem at every turn.

Quote :

"because the protesters didn't fuck up Tancredo's property; they fucked up PUBLIC property. And, you've already admitted as much. So, why are you really arguing about fucking up an evil person's property?"

You're correct. I am arguing about it because I was asked:

Quote :

"So you condone the destruction of property of someone you disagree with?"

And wanted to answer the question and clarify that it's not about screwing with people or their property because you don't agree with them. It's about trying to physically stop people who you think are doing harm. Though I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing to do, I don't see any point in destroying the property of an "evil" person just for the hell of it. I'm primarily saying if it's done in the process of trying to stop the person from doing whatever the "evil" deeds are, then I think it's worthwhile.

Quote :

"So, we can destroy people's shit, as long as we think they are dangerous. Hey, DG, I think you are dangerous, I'm gonna burn your house down tonight."

Several problems with this:
1.) You just specifically made a threat on not only my property, but myself and my wife, because obviously, I'll be in my house. Not only is that completely out of the realm of this discussion, it's patently illegal and would be quite easy to get you arrested for. That kind of speech is specifically the kind that is not and should not be illegal. Isn't this fun?
2.) I haven't threatened, nor even hinted at, ever inflicting harm on any specific person or group's property or person. You have. Who's dangerous? I think you're doing a great job of proving my point.

4/22/2009 9:19:40 PM

Quote :

"We were at war BECAUSE we thought they needed to be stopped. It's hardly a difference - it's exactly what I said in the first place."

You fucking kidding me? They both wanted to conquer the US. Germany was developing long distance bombers specifically for the US and in the meantime were patrolling the Atlantic less than 5 miles out sinking our ships. But we just bombed them b/c we "thought" they needed to be stopped.

I hope there's a big protest for that Crystal stripper piece of trash who's making an appearance.

4/22/2009 9:27:14 PM

Quote :

"We were at war BECAUSE we thought they needed to be stopped. It's hardly a difference - it's exactly what I said in the first place."

You might want to re-read your history books. We were at war because, you know, WE WERE ATTACKED BY JAPAN. Germany then DECLARED WAR ON US. Ergo, we didn't really give a shit. Or at least we didn't give enough of a shit to do anything about it.

Quote :

"As far as I can tell, I'm not the one using ad hominem at every turn."

Calling your stance stupid is not ad hominem. I suggest you look that up. At worst, it might be poisoning the well, but even then, probably not.

Quote :

"It's about trying to physically stop people who you think are doing harm."

So then you are arguing for vigilante justice.

Quote :

"You just specifically made a threat on not only my property"

Give me a break.

Quote :

"I haven't threatened, nor even hinted at, ever inflicting harm on any specific person or group's property or person."

According to you. But I think you have. In fact, I think you are so dangerous that you must be "stopped" at any cost. Do you not see the problem inherent in such a scenario? We have these damned things called "laws" for a reason. As much as I generally hate government, I can appreciate the basic protection of property and person and the concept of "due process."

4/22/2009 9:36:50 PM

Quote :

"In fact, I think you are so dangerous that you must be "stopped" at any cost. Do you not see the problem inherent in such a scenario? We have these damned things called "laws" for a reason."

The laws do exist for a reason. If you really, truly believe that DirtyGreek must be stopped, then you have to do what you have to do. And the police have to try to stop and arrest you.

If you're a lone nut hopefully you'll be stopped. If not, you'll at least be prosecuted. If there are a whole lot of people who think that DirtyGreek is a terrible threat that must be stopped -- in which case they're more likely to be right -- then he'll be stopped and life will move on as normal for most people.

It's not even a question of whether or not the people have a right to stop threats. It's an inevitability. If enough people are opposed to an idea then they'll kill it through means legal or otherwise.

4/22/2009 10:56:01 PM

Quote :

"In fact, I think you are so dangerous that you must be "stopped" at any cost. Do you not see the problem inherent in such a scenario?"

I see that you have taken my argument for damaging property as a means of stopping someone from doing something we see as dangerous and somehow tried to extend it to doing harm to people, "vigilante justice," and perhaps even (if I read your insinuation correctly) killing those people. I am not advocating violence. I am a pacifist and strongly believe violence in any form is never the right decision except when directly defending against an attack. Otherwise, it simply leads to more violence. It's not really a moral belief, more of a perspective gained through observation, but I digress.

You clearly are projecting some sort of belief that if someone wants to stop someone and will go so far as to damage property, he will also not mind damaging the person. This is not correct, at least not in my case.

It's funny, but for all my liberal sensibilities in a pragmatic sense, I am philosophically an anarchist. I don't believe in government, don't think it really works all that well, and certainly don't expect it to take care of every minuscule problem between two people. If reason and logic will not prevail, sometimes further steps must be taken. If the law will not take those steps, it's up to the people to do that. Again, this does not in my mind allow violence. I'm merely referring to nonviolent preventative measures, yes, even some as gruesome as *gasp* property damage.

Quote :

"Give me a break."

I'm not implying I take your threat seriously. I'm simply saying that your very clear (though unrealistic) threat is exactly the kind of speech that is not, were it serious, protected speech. Direct threats of violence should be dealt with through some process, legal or otherwise. They certainly shouldn't be allowed to just pass and shrugged off.

[Edited on April 22, 2009 at 11:42 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2009 11:33:59 PM

what's everyone mad about again?

let me make a list

1) dude should be able to speak (unless we all benefit? revolutionary war?)

2) windows shouldn't be broken (unless we all benefit? revolutionary war?)

3) unc (unless we all benefit? revolutionary war?)

4/22/2009 11:34:23 PM

From aaronburro

Quote :

"I haven't seen anywhere where it says the police shut down the event. plz to cite. kkthx"

FROM TFA:

Quote :

"Tancredo left after a protester broke a window and police shut down the event."

From disco_stu:

Quote :

"I didn't realize I have to cite the fucking article this thread is based on."

4/23/2009 9:41:13 AM

HA HA! This just in, no new news!

http://www.dailytarheel.com/news/university/duke-lacrosse-accuser-speaks-1.1729290

Quote :

"Mangum said media outlets did not properly check their sources, and she was especially bothered by a news segment showing her dancing at a bar, which she said the media falsely stated was two hours after the alleged rape. “I felt like everyone I was coming in contact with was letting me down,” Mangum said. “The media wasn’t protecting me by showing my interviews. They were protecting other people.” Though the two refused to speak on the specifics of the case, the audience had many questions. But due to an appointment, Mangum had to leave before the question and answer session of the event. Clark handled this segment."

4/23/2009 11:46:28 AM

stu, I read the article and didn't see that sentence. please forgive me

4/24/2009 10:50:14 AM