Frances

I understand the point on right of freedom of speech but I detest hearing messages of hatred and see my students feeding off them. I hear their rants of hatred against other races mimicking the hatred they read and hear. This is NOT their thoughts but repeating the hatred and stupidity they hear.

 

Remember I am a teacher that most if not all of the things I come to believe come from one of two points, my Christian faith or what I experience from kids.

... But tell me, the youth of this country to hate a person because of the color of their skin or to promote having relations with little boys. I don't think this makes a country stronger but divides it. [/Quote] You are 100% correct. Teaching a young person to hate someone because they are black, yellow, Jewish, Muslim, dwarfed, mentally challenged, rich, poor, Republican or Democrat is about as shallow as can be. You and I are in agreement that the teaching of hatred is divisive, and is not a good thing. On the other hand, if someone were to to sue us for saying that denouncing hatred is a bad thing, I would hope that we could defend ourselves in a court of law.

 

 

I understand your point but do you honestly think allowing the KKK to have a right to speak their hatred to the youth of this country makes this country stronger?[/Quote] ALLOWING them to does make us stronger. It is up to us to identify the weakness (or "wrongness") of their message, and denounce it. It is through the exposure of such ideas to the light of day that they are shown to be what they are - stupidity and ignorance cloaked in hatred, and fed by mindless rhetoric. That exposure is accomplished by the exchange of ideas. The KKK submits to us that hating a person because of their race, religion, or high level intelligence is good and correct. We, in turn, submit that such hatred is folly. Listeners can then decide for themselves which ideas makes more sense.

 

So goes the course of free speech.

 

 

I fully believe there are certain issues that we as a country can say, don't want to hear it. You want to speak that trash, okay but not here, not now.[/Quote] And we have done just that, as a country. It is illegal to use certain words under certain circumstances during broadcast in the electronic media. In this case, we have censored the use of certain words - but not the thought. If we are to censor the ideas and thoughts of men, then we will never have any alternative political parties to choose from (i.e. Green Party, Libertarian, Socialists, Moderates, etc.).

 

 

We say you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie house because it is dangerous. I see no difference with the danger that comes with allowing a KKK to speak their hatred except that the KKK is more dangerous. [/Quote] We agree on the issue of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie house. The fact that we can discuss that issue here, without reprisal, is the matter at hand.

 

NEVER should we not allow people to call out our elected leaders. [/Quote] On this point, you and I will have to STRONGLY disagree. It is our right - no - our obligation - to call out our elected leaders. If Nixon either broke the law, or turned a blind eye to it (Watergate), then he MUST be held accountable. The same is true for Clinton, Bush, McConnell, members of Congress, and everyone else that is elected to office.

 

 

Let me point out that I am not talking about blanket censorship but there are issues that divide this country.

Those issues that divide us are not our strength - our right to discuss them is.

 

 

Frances

Frances

I understand the point on right of freedom of speech but I detest hearing messages of hatred and see my students feeding off them. I hear their rants of hatred against other races mimicking the hatred they read and hear. This is NOT their thoughts but repeating the hatred and stupidity they hear.[/Quote] Like you, I also detest messages of hatred - whether they are delivered by someone in a KKK robe, a turban, a business suit, or a preacher in a pulpit.

 

As a teacher, I feel that a significant part of your chosen task is to teach your students to think critically. I would hope that when a student in a civics class espouses such banality as spewed by the KKK, that you would be willing to discuss their platform on a plank by plank basis (assuming that that is the subject matter for the day). Any child of parents that espouse hatred will not want to hear the alternative side of the argument. It is then your duty to explain how (and why) free speech works.

 

I love to see a politician being heckled stop the crowd from forcibly removing the heckler. Even if I disagree with that politician on a given issue, I deeply admire them when they simply speak to the heckler, and disarm them with a reasoned reply. Conversely, I find it very telling when a politician handpicks his crowd, so that no such opposing point of view can be spoken.

 

 

Frances

 

 

On this point, you and I will have to STRONGLY disagree. It is our right - no - our obligation - to call out our elected leaders. If Nixon either broke the law, or turned a blind eye to it (Watergate), then he MUST be held accountable. The same is true for Clinton, Bush, McConnell, members of Congress, and everyone else that is elected to office.

 

 

Frances

I think my double use of a negative was confusing. Let me rephrase....

We should always have the right to call out our elected leaders. Never should that be taken from us.

Like you, I also detest messages of hatred - whether they are delivered by someone in a KKK robe, a turban, a business suit, or a preacher in a pulpit.

 

As a teacher, I feel that a significant part of your chosen task is to teach your students to think critically. I would hope that when a student in a civics class espouses such banality as spewed by the KKK, that you would be willing to discuss their platform on a plank by plank basis (assuming that that is the subject matter for the day). Any child of parents that espouse hatred will not want to hear the alternative side of the argument. It is then your duty to explain how (and why) free speech works.

 

I love to see a politician being heckled stop the crowd from forcibly removing the heckler. Even if I disagree with that politician on a given issue, I deeply admire them when they simply speak to the heckler, and disarm them with a reasoned reply. Conversely, I find it very telling when a politician handpicks his crowd, so that no such opposing point of view can be spoken.

 

 

Frances

The only point to that is you would never get to speak to the people. The other side would plant hecklers to continue to disrupt and stop politicians from ever being able to speak to the crowds. And you know as well as I that both sides have very capable and pointed individuals that can handle themselves speaking wise. Our President just doesn't happen to be one.

I think my double use of a negative was confusing. Let me rephrase....

We should always have the right to call out our elected leaders. Never should that be taken from us.

 

Thank goodness I just misunderstood you. For a moment there, I thought you were going over the edge. :thumb:

 

 

Frances

... you know as well as I that both sides have very capable and pointed individuals that can handle themselves speaking wise. Our President just doesn't happen to be one.

 

Well, to be honest, I wasn't limiting the scope of my post to just George W. Bush. That said, I agree with your assessment of his public speaking skills.

 

 

Frances

I love to see a politician being heckled stop the crowd from forcibly removing the heckler. Even if I disagree with that politician on a given issue, I deeply admire them when they simply speak to the heckler, and disarm them with a reasoned reply. Conversely, I find it very telling when a politician handpicks his crowd, so that no such opposing point of view can be spoken.

 

 

Frances

 

 

I agree with your statement. I am not a great lover of all that Reagan did but there was an example during his Primaries of 1980. Someone tried to break the rules of discourse and kept talking when it was his turn. When Reagan finally tried to rebut the host tried taking the microphone from him. Reagan snapped at him and said, "I have paid for this microphone and I'm going to get the chance to speak at it." Classic Reagan.

 

Goldwater got heckled in the '64 campaign but kept right on conducting interchange with the crowd and the heckler. Some historians point to Lincoln as a master of this from his debates with Stephen Douglas in the Congressional races and the Presidential ones.

 

At some point we have to be willing to stand up and tell the idiots LBC describes, "Let your arguments stand on their own weights." When we do, they will crash to the ground I believe.

 

Here's a great example of when we have placed liberty above what others might thing is the smart thing to do.

 

We held a presidential election in the midst of a Civil War. Think about that. We had a 2 viable candidates with Lincoln and McClellan (negotiated peace guy). Now it wasn't like it was the cleanest race ever run but the election was held. Do you know of any countries willing to try that?

 

Here's another, we were in the middle of WW II and held an election. FDR won but Dewey put up a solid campaign. An election in the middle of that confligration? That is when we are at our strongest IMHO.

Well, to be honest, I wasn't limiting the scope of my post to just George W. Bush. That said, I agree with your assessment of his public speaking skills.

 

 

Frances

What about my point in dealing with hecklers at a political rally? (Not just limiting it to a R and D point but any group or organization that would want to disrupt the message (Greenpeace for an example))

 

Would you concede if hecklers were giving a free reign that in today's political mindset, we would NEVER see a political rally that would not include hecklers interrupting the events and the speaker having to stop to address the heckler? Heck the hecklers would be tripping over each other's tongues seeing whom would be the first to disrupt the speech with their viewpoint.

What about my point in dealing with hecklers at a political rally? (Not just limiting it to a R and D point but any group or organization that would want to disrupt the message (Greenpeace for an example))

 

Would you concede if hecklers were giving a free reign that in today's political mindset, we would NEVER see a political rally that would not include hecklers interrupting the events and the speaker having to stop to address the heckler? Heck the hecklers would be tripping over each other's tongues seeing whom would be the first to disrupt the speech with their viewpoint.

 

As Hatz pointed out in his post immediately above yours, heckling has happened before, and it will happen again.

 

I am not espousing that a heckler be given free rein, to completely disrupt a public speech. As you have stated, at some point, chaos ensues, and nothing is accomplished. I am saying that when a heckler wants to shout his message at someone that is trying to conduct a speech, he has already conceded his understanding of decorum, but it would still be nice to let him make his point. At that time, a skilled speaker will handle the situation, and go on with his speech.

 

Please do not misconstrue what I am saying. I am NOT espousing heckling (nor do I support it in any way). If a heckler chooses to show his backside by interrupting a speaker, his point is addressed, and then he continues to heckle, I think he should then be removed. This is true at city council meetings (where it happens quite frequently).

 

 

Frances

As Hatz pointed out in his post immediately above yours, heckling has happened before, and it will happen again.

 

I am not espousing that a heckler be given free rein, to completely disrupt a public speech. As you have stated, at some point, chaos ensues, and nothing is accomplished. I am saying that when a heckler wants to shout his message at someone that is trying to conduct a speech, he has already conceded his understanding of decorum, but it would still be nice to let him make his point. At that time, a skilled speaker will handle the situation, and go on with his speech.

 

Please do not misconstrue what I am saying. I am NOT espousing heckling (nor do I support it in any way). If a heckler chooses to show his backside by interrupting a speaker, his point is addressed, and then he continues to heckle, I think he should then be removed. This is true at city council meetings (where it happens quite frequently).

 

 

Frances

My issue is with what you have said in the last paragraph. In the mindset of our society today, I would envision this constantly happening at political rallies and you never being able to truly hold them.

 

On second thought, that might be a good thing.

 

On third thought, that would mean politicians would rely on commercials more to get their points across.

Just throwing this out there. Heckling provided one of the biggest political gaffes of our time (or mine :lol: ), "I actually voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it."

You know - that was funny. Especially considering that it came from the mouth of a man that was trying to defend himself from being labeled as a "waffler" at the time.

 

I think that is one of the truisms to this entire argument about heckling. It points out just how "staged" the televised debates are.

 

The opponents know what questions will be asked before ever even agreeing to the debate. I find this preposterous, since it allows someone to mask their ability to think on their feet, process a tough question, and respond with a diplomatic, yet legitimate answer.

 

 

Frances

The opponents know what questions will be asked before ever even agreeing to the debate. I find this preposterous, since it allows someone to mask their ability to think on their feet, process a tough question, and respond with a diplomatic, yet legitimate answer.

 

 

Frances

 

Unfortunately, that is the truth. What is also sad is their ability to oversimplify issues and make red herring arguments while we let it slide or buy into it. I would love to see a politician give a "diplomatic, yet legitimate" and thorough, might I add, statement or response to a real, pressing issue...then I would get to see half of America fall asleep and vote for the other guy.

The opponents know what questions will be asked before ever even agreeing to the debate. I find this preposterous, since it allows someone to mask their ability to think on their feet, process a tough question, and respond with a diplomatic, yet legitimate answer.

 

 

Frances

 

Frances, once again it all boils down to money. Each candidate must have X dollars in pledges and once these pledges are made, those making the pledges begin to dictate how the candidate will stand on issues, etc. If they put up the money, they can't have the candidate saying something on a whim that goes against or would cause problems for any business the pledger may operate. When my brother ran for congress, it was ridiculous how the supporters tried to "persuade" him on what to say and how to say it. I can remember seeing "Speech A" and "Speech B" on his desk. Thankfully, he finished second to Hal Rogers and didn't have to move to DC.