09.20.09

Where forgetting the sacred and constitutionally enshrined nature of free speech can lead

Posted in Diciness of Western civilization's survival prospects, Islam, Law dhimmitude at 11:23 pm by Administrator

To legal trouble for speaking the simple truth about a “religion” based on fear of male sexual feelings.

  • Share/Bookmark

6 Comments »

  1. Mr. Dings said,

    September 22, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    Ahh those Depublicans and Remocrats. This, from the bloggie who wants a United States President banned from speaking at an institution of higher learning in his state and even invokes the name of Our Lady, sharing her thoughts on the matter, who wants protest (and banning?) over a speaker in this free land at another public institution of higher learning in his great state where his taxes must go for something other than intellectual freedom. It’s so, well, funny, to see him grump about from day to day over the other side doing the same things he champions from his corner of the ring. Yes, the ring, always the fight ring, the battlefield. Always trying to root out that which is not in accord with his world view. And, consequently, always a bit off balance. but that’s for him to decide for himself, not my call at all, enough to try to keep my side of the street clean. I suppose no one else on this globe deserves breathing room to live and learn, to progress and to prosper, if it’s not all held back by those who already know and have.

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/15/00012/

    When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.” The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.”

  2. Bentnotesmanhisself said,

    September 22, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    Cordoning off an area for political expression is not the same thing as prosecuting someone for remarks made in a private conversation on private property on the basis that their remarks somehow harmed the person to whom they were made when they clearly didn’t. The Muslim guests at the British hotel were free to argue back or leave. The anti-W protesters you cite were told by personnel responsible for the president’s security where they could stand and do their thing.
    And the TCM address at Notre Dame is a flawed analogy as well. ND is a private institution that ostensibly upholds Catholic values, principles and doctrine, and to invite an individual on record as having a position of human life utterly contrary to those diminishes ND’s core identity.
    I must credit Bovard with being consistent; he is indeed an equal-opportunity critic of government encroachment on freedom. He wrote some scathing indictments of Clinton-Gore. He’d make an excellent focal point for an essay on why I’m not a libertarian, a project I will be tackling one of these days.

  3. Bentnotesmanhisself said,

    September 22, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    Then there’s what the British couple said about Islam, which is indisputable.

  4. Mr. Dings said,

    September 22, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    Anyhow, that’s England, not us. And that’s Islam, not Christianity. Does God want us to fight and kill (perhaps die?) over it? I suppose so. Funny God! Who many times does not leave us laughing. Oh well. Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive our private Catholic University for its intellectual freedom. It appears you have plenty of company in your selective campaign against intellectual freedom though:

    http://www.antropologi.info/blog/anthropology/2006/bush_war_of_terror_and_the_erosion_of_fr

    The American public has – as a recent survey reveals – very strange understandings of what the university is and does:

    Nearly 70% believe the university should, as its primary function, provide job training rather than cultivate critical thinking. Over 60% believe that professors should be fired for associating with ‘radical’ political organizations. Over 50% think that too much scholarly research today is irrelevant to the needs of society. Finally, nearly 40% believe that the political bias of professors is a serious problem on campu

  5. Bentnotesmanhisself said,

    September 22, 2009 at 8:04 pm

    Horowitz is one of the most important sounders of the alarm bell about the state of higher education in America.
    As for “that’s England, not us,” it is us in terms of being Western civiliation, which is under assault as never before.

  6. Mr. Dings said,

    September 22, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    How can you cultivate critical thinking by banning “some” thinking? I know, I know, your David Horowitz. Let’s all major in engineering or something practical. Who needs opinions?

Leave a Comment