Take heed, Dubya...

[CFLarsen]

davefoc,

I am indeed making the point that we see these cartoons in Danish media and not in US media. Why not? You make fun of politicians, you make fun of celebrities, and you certainly make fun of Christians as well. But do you make fun of Muslims? I've only seen Muslim terrorists made fun of so far.

The use of humor is part and parcel of a free press. Think of what impact cartoons have had in the past in the US. Politicians have been ridiculed for their idiocies. Big shots get their comeuppance by satire. Why is it so effective? Because those who are targets are targets because they said you can't make fun of them. If something is pronounced taboo, the satirists immediately step in. That's what they are there for: To point out the dangers of such absolute power.

You say that the US doesn't ridicule Islam - but why not? Everyone else seems to be ridiculed. Do American media publish 12 cartoons depicting Muhammed, simply because some Muslims say you can't? No.

As for the other examples: If the Danish PM tried even vaguely to censor the press and science the way Bush has in the US, there would be an uproar. Nobody would stand for it, even those media that are - to a point - "government friendly".

 

[CFLarsen]

I disagree that it's a Global Gag Rule. It's a restriction on funding, not speech. The government's position is this: If you want to discuss abortion, that's fine, but we're not going to give you any of our money. It's perfectly within their rights to do that. Of course, not everyone will agree with that, but that's beside the point. It is not infringing on any American's freedom to say anything he or she wants about any subject at all, ever.

It infringes on the American employees' right to discuss abortion. When they work in these organizations, they can't discuss abortion issues, because that's a no-no.

Scientists are free to speak, write, and say whatever they please. The government is also free to offer up its opinions and to try to stack the deck in its favor. I think that it's wrong for the government to do that, but that act in and of itself does not stop any scientist anywhere from speaking up about anything. If you can cite an example of a scientist being "gagged" by the government, I will gladly eat my words.

Under the current administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has blacklisted qualified scientists who pose a threat to its pro-business ideology. When a team of biologists working for the EPA indicated that there had been a violation of the “Endangered Species Act” by the Army Corps of Engineers, the group was replaced with a “corporate-friendly” panel. In addition, a nationally respected biologist, Dr. James Zahn, was ordered by EPA representatives not to publish a study identifying a health endangering bacteria in industrial hog farms.
The Bush Administration is appointing unqualified scientists with close industry ties to the advisory boards. The Office of Human Services appointed several individuals with ties to the lead industry. One of their appointees testified that lead levels, seven times the current limit, are safe for children.
Source

Censorship and political oversight of government scientists is not restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior, when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration's policies or with the views of its political supporters.
Source

Scientists and Nobel Laureates Say Bush Administration Has Censored Reports: In late February, more than 60 influential scientists, including more than 20 Nobel laureates, signed a statement saying the administration had disbanded scientific advisory committees, placed unqualified people on other panels and censored reports by others when their scientific conclusions conflicted with administration policies. (New York Times, 3/30/04)
Source

You want salt and pepper with those?

True. But that's not what happened here. Here you had the government actively tyring to cover up information. Then the press came along and reported on the cover-up. As a result, after a long process, the government came to its senses and released the information it was trying to cover up. To me, that's a wonderful example of how freedom of speech works in this country. If we were in North Korea, the people who reported on the cover-up probably would have been summarily excecuted.

You are in the US, and the science committees are still being replaced by numbskulls.

Exactly. The government was trying to suppress the information just for that reason. Sure, that's wrong. Fortunately, our system works in such a way that the people who spoke out against this act are still free, and not in some prison somewhere.

You don't need to put people in prison to silence them. Just take away their grants and remove them from their positions.

Here's the bottom line. If I want, I can get a permit and sit in front of the White House with a sign that reads "Dubya is an idiot who has sex with monkeys!" and as long as I'm not disturbing the peace, I can have no fear of government reprisals.

That's the key point, isn't it? Who decides when you are disturbing the peace?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, I don't deny it at all. It's wrong and I condemng such actions though I can understand why some might think it appropriate.

You can do without the "wait, wait" rhetoric Larsen. I'm more than happy to concede the truth.

Good. Just to clarify: You admit that your previous statement:

America has freedom of speech and Bush is doing nothing to quash it, aside perhaps from some protests where he is speaking and I won't minimize the importance of that.

was wrong?

 

[davefoc]

davefoc,

I am indeed making the point that we see these cartoons in Danish media and not in US media. Why not? You make fun of politicians, you make fun of celebrities, and you certainly make fun of Christians as well. But do you make fun of Muslims? I've only seen Muslim terrorists made fun of so far.

Only a few groups in the US are routinely ridiculed. I am not sure why the list is so small.

My list in order of frequency of targeted ridicule would be
Politicians, particularly the standing president
Other celebrities
Christians
Gays to some degree

Mostly, ridicule of any group (except the four I mentioned above) in the US, is not politically correct and is rarely done in the media. That seems like it is a good thing to me. Societies where people respect each other despite their differences are probably better than societies where majority populations routinely engage in the ridicule of various subsets of the population.

So I think the better question is why is ridicule acceptable for a few groups and not why some particular group (like Muslims) are not targetted. I don't know the answer to this exactly but it probably is a combination of factors. For one thing it is a bit dicey for a media outlet to decide to make fun of any group that is not on the accepted list. If the joke is perceived as cruel or unfair the media outlet can expect to be criticized as racist. It is safer to make a joke at the expense of Christianity where there are many precedents and not venture into untested areas.

 

[JLam]

It infringes on the American employees' right to discuss abortion. When they work in these organizations, they can't discuss abortion issues, because that's a no-no.

It does no such thing. They can discuss abortion if they want. They will lose U.S. funding if they do, but no one is saying they can't simply talk about it. That's just dishonest.

You want salt and pepper with those?

I prefer mustard, actually. But I'm not eating anything yet.

The examples you cited were of the government actively trying to supress information. That's different from restricting speech. It's just as wrong, in my opinion, but it's different. Those scientists are free to publish their information in journals, and the government is free to not listen to them and to remove them from advisory committees. Let's be clear about something. Those actions are clearly wrong, but they do not fall under the heading of restricting speech. If the scientists want the information out there, it will clearly get out there, as referenced by the fact that you were even able to quote those articles. If we didn't have freedom of speech in this country, you never would have heard about the government trying to cover up this information.

You are in the US, and the science committees are still being replaced by numbskulls.

Again, it's clearly wrong, but not a violation of our First Amendment. Trust me. If it was, it would have been challenged by now.

You don't need to put people in prison to silence them. Just take away their grants and remove them from their positions.

Point granted. But any good scientist in this country would be welcomed by an number of distinguished universities, and grant money doesn't come exclusively from the government. If there is good science to be done, it will be done.

That's the key point, isn't it? Who decides when you are disturbing the peace?

The police. And believe it or not, they're usually pretty good about letting people demonstrate. The police in this country will protect neo-nazis and the KKK if those groups want to hold a rally or a parade. Can you imagine that? Black police officers protecting the rights of white hatemongers to parade down the street! That's freedom.

 

[RandFan]

Good. Just to clarify: You admit that your previous statement:

was wrong?

To some extent, yes. However I think it would be very misleading to suggest that it was wrong to a large extent. There are sadly some specific but isolated instances of an attempt by the administration or others to suppress speech. I'm willing to admit that.

I'm curious, are you willing to admit that by and large free speech is alive and well in America? That Americans can pretty much say just about anything we want just about anytime as long as it is in public? That my examples are empirical proof that Americans are free to speak their minds? Will you admit that we can and do,

1.) Regularly and derisively mock the President of the United States.
2.) Regularly and derisively mock religious institutions.
3.) Speak out for abortion rights.
4.) Protest the President of the United States.
5.) Protest for abortion rights.
6.) Protest against the war.
7.) That the ACLU has effectively protected free speech rights in the US since 1920
8.) That the United States Supreme Court voted unanimously in favor of Larry Flynt in a landmark free speech case?

How about it? Or are the questions and answers one sided? For you to ask and me to answer only?

Pro-Abortion Rally April 2004

Anti-War Rally September 24, 2005

 

[RandFan]

Larsen? Hellooo....

 

[CFLarsen]

To some extent, yes.

Thank you.

*ding*

Next?

Larsen? Hellooo....

Hello, what?

You post in the middle of the night (for me), and you expect me to answer you? I have told you before, I sleep at night. Yes, when it's night for me, it's still day for you. Obviously, you are so f*****g stupid that I have to inform you of this each time I go to bed.

"Compromise", my a55....

 

[RandFan]

Hello, what?

"WHAT?" Are you kidding? Look at the time stamp of my post. 21st November 2005 05:42 PM

Ok now, work with me here. I posted my questions on the 21st. Your answer was on the 23rd. Do you see it? Huh? Do you? Do I need to do the math for you?

Watch who you call stupid when you are incapable of doing your own math.

 

[RandFan]

Oh, oh, wait, just a minute. YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!

DOH!!!!!!!

You lose 24 hours and then you don't answer the questions? Are you kidding?

Larsen, HELLLLLLoooooooOOOOOOOOOOOO

Anyone home?