General Discussion

Jessy169

(602 posts)

27. Definitely bigger than just the "Innocence of Muslims" video

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:56 AM

Sep 2012

Right wing hate speech is:

1) Growing, organizing, extremely well financed
2) A useful tool for invigorating "the base" voters with fear and anger
3) A useful tool for terrorizing minorities here in America and abroad, keeping them in their place
4) Generated and encouraged and co-opted by individuals/politicians/others who have ulterior motives

Left wing hate speech is:

1) Raging against the machine
2) Fighting back against the right-wing hatemongers -- fighting fire with fire
3) Generated/created by individuals, not well-financed groups, out of a sense of idealism and anger at injustice, not with the ulterior motive to incite violence and repress minorities or religious/ethnic groups

HUGE difference between right wing and left wing hate speech.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

167 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A war is raging against free speech [View all] MNBrewer Sep 2012 OP

Here on DU as well ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #1

The calls here on DU for criminalizing speech are troubling, indeed. MNBrewer Sep 2012 #3

I think the only free speech I would ban is the calling for banning of free speech. nt Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #12

Yup. The Thought Police here at the "Underground" have fallen into line rather quickly. villager Sep 2012 #30

Pretty blatant examples of that here in this thread ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #33

What's really sad is how their ask-no-questions apologetics mimic precisely the things they pretend villager Sep 2012 #34

That's how you get people to vote their rights away 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #52

Right. And that the erosion of rights is okay because "our side" can always be trusted villager Sep 2012 #58

Naturally 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #59

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #122

You don't protect the rights of specific individuals 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #124

So, if that's true, you're willing to throw the 1st Amendment away, for good measure? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #128

Who else should we include in this list? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #143

The idea that OUR fundies wouldn't use such laws against us is naive and dangerous... friendly_iconoclast Sep 2012 #162

Bingo!!! liberallibral Sep 2012 #93

But... but other nations ban blasphemy and hate speech! <--- sound familiar? Zalatix Sep 2012 #150

What the fuck?! Are you fucking serious?! n/t porphyrian Sep 2012 #2

Yes, free speech is the greatest asset to democracy. alp227 Sep 2012 #97

I don't know, I like not having a state religion, too. n/t porphyrian Sep 2012 #106

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #4

So you say MNBrewer Sep 2012 #7

Who gets to decide what speech incites to violence? JDPriestly Sep 2012 #43

THANK YOU!!!! Your post++ alp227 Sep 2012 #103

So you mean, we shouldn't say anything mean about Adolph? socialindependocrat Sep 2012 #56

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #62

I see your point, but MNBrewer Sep 2012 #67

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #72

It went along with a LOT of other things MNBrewer Sep 2012 #75

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #76

duplicate. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #147

GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED. Not some weirdo film-maker. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #149

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #84

Just so I'm clear here MNBrewer Sep 2012 #88

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #119

Your time line is wrong, for one thing MNBrewer Sep 2012 #123

On balance, I prefer to have my enemies free to speak their mind openly . . . markpkessinger Sep 2012 #100

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #120

That would be "Adolf" to his friends. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #146

Only if there is a direct call for violence and the crimes are imminent, not NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #61

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #74

If, heaven forbid, George W. Bush were to be assassinated by a deranged killer MNBrewer Sep 2012 #89

Speech that doesn't lead to imminent lawless action is not illegal NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #102

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #117

Well, YES, it's legal! MNBrewer Sep 2012 #125

There are already limits on speech. NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #138

Actually, it IS FREE SPEECH... liberallibral Sep 2012 #95

Remember this saying by Benjamin Franklin: alp227 Sep 2012 #98

+1 MNBrewer Sep 2012 #101

It most assuredly fucking is. nt Codeine Sep 2012 #127

Careful, you'll piss off DU's islamophobes Scootaloo Sep 2012 #137

Do you recognize US jurisprudence as superior to any citizen's personal definition? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #145

If you were right then Sarah Palin would be in jail by now, as well as Rush Limbaugh and a few other Zalatix Sep 2012 #152

Dangerous stuff get the red out Sep 2012 #5

Oh really? 99Forever Sep 2012 #9

Can you imagine the abuse here? get the red out Sep 2012 #13

You think there aren't religous zealots ... 99Forever Sep 2012 #20

They are not the United States get the red out Sep 2012 #51

It's a brave new world MNBrewer Sep 2012 #64

It's looking that way get the red out Sep 2012 #87

"attacked"? 99Forever Sep 2012 #91

Where did I ever say that? get the red out Sep 2012 #110

Your words: 99Forever Sep 2012 #159

Still don't see where I told you to shut up get the red out Sep 2012 #166

And they're wrong to do so. jeff47 Sep 2012 #24

And that is part of their intention, to limit discussion on how Hitler and his evil.... Raster Sep 2012 #28

What specifically leads you to that premise precisely? LanternWaste Sep 2012 #32

here's the specific german law hauweg Sep 2012 #69

From your link: jeff47 Sep 2012 #156

Significantly different cultures ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #26

Don't get the mistaken impression that I... 99Forever Sep 2012 #44

It seems that in the US we are willing to risk offensive speech to guarantee free speech for the ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #49

Interesting ... 99Forever Sep 2012 #83

How are you going to establish that intent? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #90

Intent is established all the time... 99Forever Sep 2012 #96

I can say it MNBrewer Sep 2012 #99

Some speech IS criminal already. 99Forever Sep 2012 #104

Some, yeah MNBrewer Sep 2012 #105

Well yeah. 99Forever Sep 2012 #107

My point is MNBrewer Sep 2012 #109

Where did I ever say I ... 99Forever Sep 2012 #157

You want "hate speech" to be illegal. Which certainly would include blasphemy, right? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #158

No, not certainly. 99Forever Sep 2012 #160

Should these guys have been prosecuted for "hate speech"? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #161

Why? 99Forever Sep 2012 #164

I think saying things like that does cause actual harm stevenleser Sep 2012 #111

Can someone saying "homosexuality is intrinsically disordered" MNBrewer Sep 2012 #112

There is an important distinction. Leviticus does not rant against the LGBT community stevenleser Sep 2012 #126

Why does saying gays are evil need justification? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #131

I'm speaking to a potential law that I am talking through in our conversation. stevenleser Sep 2012 #135

Ok, well, i'm going to go on record as opposing that law, whatever it will be MNBrewer Sep 2012 #139

No - I don't thing the Teabaggers know the difference socialindependocrat Sep 2012 #80

Yes DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #60

I think the problem with discussion about this in the US is laundry_queen Sep 2012 #140

It's a tough issue bongbong Sep 2012 #6

no it's not. and yes, it is a simple problem. cali Sep 2012 #8

Assertions are fun! bongbong Sep 2012 #31

Its not per se illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater onenote Sep 2012 #39

Thanks bongbong Sep 2012 #42

I am against any type of restrictions on free speech... Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #10

no one likes free speech when it's against them. how many times has the lgbt community come out La Lioness Priyanka Sep 2012 #11

I'd say we do it quite often MNBrewer Sep 2012 #16

i have many a times and i am pretty sure if you search the archives so will you La Lioness Priyanka Sep 2012 #63

You have done what? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #66

seen people on du ask for free speech to be criminalized on the grounds of it being hate speech La Lioness Priyanka Sep 2012 #82

You have seen GLBT DUers state this? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #92

And yet Fred Phelps has not been attacked, no one seeks to jail him, he is Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #41

many many here and elsewhere have advocated against fred phelps free speech La Lioness Priyanka Sep 2012 #65

I'm a gay man, and I support his right to his free "hate speech" MNBrewer Sep 2012 #71

How do you say "go fuck yourself... and your religious views" in Arabic? -..__... Sep 2012 #14

The irony is that the film has caused people who otherwise would not be sympathetic to the Muslim JDPriestly Sep 2012 #48

I've had 3 posts hidden Oregonian Sep 2012 #15

grab a clue, honey. DU is a private organization, not a nation and not a world body. duh. cali Sep 2012 #17

I put the term "primitives" in quotes for a reason Oregonian Sep 2012 #21

The real problem here is extremists of all kinds... OldDem2012 Sep 2012 #18

Well said. And welcome to DU! hifiguy Sep 2012 #25

Here's an example of what we would have to look forward to MNBrewer Sep 2012 #19

Totally disagree with your point that "A war is raging against free speech" Jessy169 Sep 2012 #22

If you want to limit the discussion to the video "Innocence of the Muslims" and the reaction MNBrewer Sep 2012 #23

Definitely bigger than just the "Innocence of Muslims" video Jessy169 Sep 2012 #27

So you plan on criminalizing right wing hate speech? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #29

Me? "Plan" to criminalize right wing hate speech? Jessy169 Sep 2012 #36

I'll be a little more explicit, then MNBrewer Sep 2012 #37

As stated previously Jessy169 Sep 2012 #46

There are legal opinions written by legal scholars that have been used to justify the use of torture MNBrewer Sep 2012 #53

Obama at UN "the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #50

Yes! War against free speech does equate to a war raging against free speech. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #130

To be perfectly fair, the American idea of absolute freedom of speech is not the norm... Spider Jerusalem Sep 2012 #35

I think that question has been turned around in your formulation MNBrewer Sep 2012 #38

Well no... Spider Jerusalem Sep 2012 #40

That's not really what is being proposed MNBrewer Sep 2012 #47

Worldwide the norm is that women aren't really people 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #54

And "they" will enforce the global blasphemy ban with black UN helicopters. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2012 #77

I doubt it will actually go through 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #78

Totally agree with your post Jessy169 Sep 2012 #68

To be fair DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #70

>Implying that the US wasn't founded by people escaping 'the norm'. Edweird Sep 2012 #167

Let them clean up their own houses first leftynyc Sep 2012 #45

I'm starting to think an anti_Islam video should be released every week quinnox Sep 2012 #55

hehe. Really! I mean when ISN'T this an appropriate headline MNBrewer Sep 2012 #57

That's taking things too far... Zalatix Sep 2012 #154

Are the "Arab and Muslim leaders" who are proposing this law ... surrealAmerican Sep 2012 #73

Vatican Walks A Fine Line On Trying To Combat Blasphemy In UN MNBrewer Sep 2012 #79

Bwhahahahahahahahaha! 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #81

There's the problem get the red out Sep 2012 #113

The standard seems to be that A) the person being mocked geniuinely believes 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #114

Some religious beliefs RIGHTLY deserve mockery! MNBrewer Sep 2012 #115

Beyond the "don't be a dick to each other" proclamations that every religion touches on 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #116

I agree with you MNBrewer Sep 2012 #118

People have concocted some strange beliefs about god 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #121

+100,000,000!!! Well said! Zalatix Sep 2012 #155

Fuck religion. Alduin Sep 2012 #85

Religion. (n/t) Iggo Sep 2012 #86

About the author: alp227 Sep 2012 #94

Time for the Muslim world to discover the Enlightenment. Claims of blasphemy sure sign it NEEDS it! on point Sep 2012 #108

Absolute Kick for your reply. GoneOffShore Sep 2012 #136

What is needed is for the modern world---including DU 100%--to LAUGH IN THEIR FACES. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #142

Been laughing at the religious for years. Doesn't seem to help. GoneOffShore Sep 2012 #163

Yeah- not going to happen Marrah_G Sep 2012 #129

Are Catholics more civil/tolerant than Muslims? Go Vols Sep 2012 #132

WTH? Leave Catholics out of this. It isn't like war-mongers today aren't PROTESTANT. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #151

It was only an example of Go Vols Sep 2012 #153

Or clerics lying on tv and radio to incite riots over religion could be made illegal. Waiting For Everyman Sep 2012 #133

Blasphemy laws are a way to restrict criticism of religion which rightly deserves criticism. GoneOffShore Sep 2012 #134

STOP IT! STOP IT! [tm Ann Baby] WinkyDink Sep 2012 #141

Nah. The abuse of "free speech" by a fanatical few is causing the world to consider... Junkdrawer Sep 2012 #144

US Government actions against Occupy movement etc. nt. tama Sep 2012 #165