Republicans and free speech

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Yes, I mean the Muhammed Cartoons. Newspapers and governments in Europe were openly in support of what the Danish newspaper did.

Barely a peep from the "model of democracy for the world", i.e the US. Officially or otherwise.

Set my understanding of the world into perspective.

Just curious: what exactly did you expect the U.S. to do? There was plenty of discussion, editorials, etc. about the issue. What would have been an appropriate response by the U.S. or Americans that would have satisfied you?

Plus, people burn the U.S. flag and try to set our embassies on fire all the time. So the protests might not have been as shocking to Americans as they were to Denmark. That kind of thing is pretty much par for the course for the U.S., so a few violent protests don't necessarily turn that many heads anymore here

 

[LawnOven]

Yes, I mean the Muhammed Cartoons. Newspapers and governments in Europe were openly in support of what the Danish newspaper did.

Barely a peep from the "model of democracy for the world", i.e the US. Officially or otherwise.

Set my understanding of the world into perspective.

Hmm, well I live here, and that's not how I remember it. At least in regards to your "or otherwise" part (which I assume covers the non-government aspects).

There was quite a lot of public discussion regarding your cartoons.

 

[marksman]

So are you saying that it's ok for a president to limit where and how people protest simply because other presidents have done so?

No, I'm saying that you stating "there is one president who has limited where and how people can protest against him" is historically inaccurate. Astoundingly so.

 

[Darth Rotor]

No, I'm saying that you stating "there is one president who has limited where and how people can protest against him" is historically inaccurate. Astoundingly so.

He is unaware, I suspect, of Abe Lincoln's track record.

Copperheads criticized him vehemently for refusing to compromise on slavery, declaring martial law, suspending the writ of habeas corpus, ordering arrests of 18,000 opponents including public officials and newspaper publishers, needlessly ending the lives of hundreds of thousands of young soldiers in the war, and for overstepping the bounds of executive power as set forth in the Constitution. On the other hand, Radical Republicans criticized him for moving too slowly in abolishing slavery, and not being ruthless enough toward the conquered South.

DR

 

[marksman]

Yes, and I purposely chose some of the more popular Presidents to emphasize the point. Lincoln, Wilson, FDR? I think these may be the three most popular presidents after Washington.

 

[fishbob]

always seemed counterintuitive to me, the righties all uptight and conservative and whatnot have never passed a law limiting my speech or freedom

the left has, again and again and again and again

Laws? They never needed no steenking laws.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11039prs19990830.html

. . . the Governor has maintained the right to arrest them, saying in an April 1999 news conference that "the rules have changed." But despite the ACLU's repeated requests, state officials have not provided a copy of the "revised" rules -- or any rules at all.

"These hidden rules that essentially give unlimited police discretion to exclude and arrest critics, when they make criticism in public, violate Texas Constitutional rights to free speech, petition, equal protection, due process, and freedom from unreasonable seizures," the ACLU's complaint said.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Laws? They never needed no steenking laws.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11039prs19990830.html

Bob, how did that lawsuit get resolved? I note that it was filed seven years ago.

DR

 

[DanishDynamite]

Just curious: what exactly did you expect the U.S. to do? There was plenty of discussion, editorials, etc. about the issue. What would have been an appropriate response by the U.S. or Americans that would have satisfied you?

I would have expected the official representatives of "the land of the free" to obviously give statements supporting the things which are stated in their own Constitution and which is supposed to be the backbone of the country. Things like freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Plus, people burn the U.S. flag and try to set our embassies on fire all the time. So the protests might not have been as shocking to Americans as they were to Denmark. That kind of thing is pretty much par for the course for the U.S., so a few violent protests don't necessarily turn that many heads anymore here

Perfectly understandable. It was just the lack of clear support officially coupled with the great reluctance of big news media in the US to even print a cartoon, let alone voice any support, which was so unexpected.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Hmm, well I live here, and that's not how I remember it. At least in regards to your "or otherwise" part (which I assume covers the non-government aspects).

There was quite a lot of public discussion regarding your cartoons.

That isn't my recollection. Yes, a few small newspapers here and there finally grew a set and decided to publish a few of the cartoons. I don't recall the big newspapers doing so. Or the big news channels. Let alone official America.

 

[Ziggurat]

Almost no one in the US seems to understand the concept of "free speech" and how important it is for a democratic state. Witness the lack of support when Denmark was in the fire recently.

I was disappointed with the lack of visible support for Denmark from our elected officials and from major media sources. However, I think you're underestimating the level of support among the general US public. And perhaps I'm remembering this wrongly, but I think US imports of Danish goods increased in the wake of that controversy.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I would have expected the official representatives of "the land of the free" to obviously give statements supporting the things which are stated in their own Constitution and which is supposed to be the backbone of the country. Things like freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Well, here are a couple of remarks President Bush made on the situation. It sounds to me like he is pretty supportive of freedom of speech and press:

"First of all, I think it's very important for people around the world to know that a free press is important for a democratic state. A free press -- for peaceful states, as well. Free press holds people to account. Free press makes sure that there is a check and a balance on people in power. Free press also must be a responsible press.

Secondly, I fully understand people taking -- not liking the cartoons. On the other hand, I do not believe that people should use that as a pretext for violence, nor do I appreciate the fact that some are using -- manipulating the anger over the cartoons to achieve political ends. And therefore, it's very important for governments to not allow policy to be set by those who are cynically manipulating the anger that some have felt over these cartoons. " Link here.

And:

"I first want to make it very clear to people around the world that ours is a nation that believes in tolerance and understanding. In America we welcome people of all faiths. One of the great attributes of our country is that you're free to worship however you choose in the United States of America.

Secondly, we believe in a free press. We also recognize that with freedom comes responsibilities. With freedom comes the responsibility to be thoughtful about others. Finally, I have made it clear to His Majesty and he made it clear to me that we reject violence as a way to express discontent with what may be printed in a free press. I call upon the governments around the world to stop the violence, to be respectful, to protect property, protect the lives of innocent diplomats who are serving their countries overseas. " Link here.

Additionally, according to this BBC Article, President Bush called the Danish PM "to express support and solidarity with Denmark."

 

[Chaos]

Bob, how did that lawsuit get resolved? I note that it was filed seven years ago.

DR

Extra credit for not giving exaggerated prominence to the fact that the cause for this lawsuit appears to have happened under Clinton´s watch.