PDA

View Full Version : Actual attempts to silence speech



MrsSmith
11-30-2011, 11:46 PM
Oklahoma Pastor & Church Receive Death Threats After Opposing Gay Rights Agenda at City Council Meeting
November 30, 2011 at 10:00 am

...

Last week, a pastor in Oklahoma received multiple death threats after he spoke for two minutes at a city council meeting in Oklahoma City, arguing against adding “sexual orientation” to the city’s anti-discrimination policy.

Paul Blair, Pastor of Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Oklahoma told the council that the law was unnecessary and would create an unfair burden on employers and could allow men to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms.

http://www.nomblog.com/16122/

I just read a thread in B/W of DU in which some of our members argue that requesting an apology for a rude statement is suppression of free speech. :rolleyes: Multiple death threats and threats of other violence really is suppression of speech...and guess which story made national news?? Surprise, surprise. Some rude, lying teen makes a stupid comment and the whole freaking world knows. In contrast, a pastor and various church members are threatened, and even the local media nearly ignores it. :mad:

Elspeth
11-30-2011, 11:49 PM
The Brownback case was more about people's fear of internet monitoring than about one rude little girl.

This case of the pastor getting death threats, however, is in another league entirely. These kinds of threats, by the way, are one reason why Prop 8 donors did not want their names made public. They were afraid of just this kind of threat.

MrsSmith
11-30-2011, 11:55 PM
The Brownback case was more about people's fear of internet monitoring than about one rude little girl.

This case of the pastor getting death threats, however, is in another league entirely. These kinds of threats, by the way, are one reason why Prop 8 donors did not want their names made public. They were afraid of just this kind of threat.

People need to understand that stuff on the internet is NOT private. It never has been, and likely never will be. Anyone that doesn't get that is lucky to be reminded by nothing worse than a request for an apology.

Elspeth
11-30-2011, 11:58 PM
People need to understand that stuff on the internet is NOT private. It never has been, and likely never will be. Anyone that doesn't get that is lucky to be reminded by nothing worse than a request for an apology.

I give up. Some people are so angry at this little girl's rudeness that they're losing the larger picture.

Novaheart
12-01-2011, 01:59 AM
http://www.nomblog.com/16122/

I just read a thread in B/W of DU in which some of our members argue that requesting an apology for a rude statement is suppression of free speech. :rolleyes: Multiple death threats and threats of other violence really is suppression of speech...and guess which story made national news?? Surprise, surprise. Some rude, lying teen makes a stupid comment and the whole freaking world knows. In contrast, a pastor and various church members are threatened, and even the local media nearly ignores it. :mad:

What is "suppression of free speech"? Your free speech is only protected by the constitution, for you, from the government. Suppression of free speech? Sounds like intimidation. At some level, intimidation is illegal- that is the crime, not "suppression of free speech".

Credible threats are illegal. Some whackjob on the street corner or in the pulpit claiming that he or God is going to strike you down through the magic of thought, is not a credible threat. I would guess than anyone who calls this jackass pastor over and over isn't a credible threat either, but that's up to the police.

Did you have a point?

Odysseus
12-01-2011, 09:19 AM
The Brownback case was more about people's fear of internet monitoring than about one rude little girl.

This case of the pastor getting death threats, however, is in another league entirely. These kinds of threats, by the way, are one reason why Prop 8 donors did not want their names made public. They were afraid of just this kind of threat.
No, the Brownback case was about a rude teenager. The people who defended her turned it into a debate about internet monitoring, because they couldn't win the other argument.

I give up. Some people are so angry at this little girl's rudeness that they're losing the larger picture.
When Bill Clinton was impeached, the charges were not about having an affair, they were about perjury, obstruction of justice, fixing court cases, sexual harrassment and otherwise violating the law. The Democrats couldn't win that argument, so they repeated the mantra that it was about consensual sex between consenting adults and that it was nobody's business but theirs. It's the same here. The student made a rude and apparently false statement, that reflected poorly on her and the group that she belonged to, and the governor's staffer called her on it.


What is "suppression of free speech"? Your free speech is only protected by the constitution, for you, from the government. Suppression of free speech? Sounds like intimidation. At some level, intimidation is illegal- that is the crime, not "suppression of free speech".
It's both. A private entity can violate a person's civil rights without having the authority of government behind it. That's the basis of most anti-discrimination laws. Anybody that uses force or the threat of force to silence opponents is suppressing free speech.


Credible threats are illegal. Some whackjob on the street corner or in the pulpit claiming that he or God is going to strike you down through the magic of thought, is not a credible threat. I would guess than anyone who calls this jackass pastor over and over isn't a credible threat either, but that's up to the police.

Did you have a point?

Yes, she has a point. Our selectively outraged media is hyperventilating about a gubernatorial staffer informing an organization that one of the students that they brought to the state house behaved inappropriately, while death threats from liberals to a conservative pastor receive far less coverage, even though the latter story is of far less importance. But, let's take you at your word. If that minister calls the local Lambda office and repeatedly tells them that they are going to die in hellfire, the lack of credibility of that threat makes it okay? How about if someone calls an abortion clinic several times daily and calls them murderers? No threat, there, just rudeness. No harm, no foul, right?

noonwitch
12-01-2011, 10:14 AM
I give up. Some people are so angry at this little girl's rudeness that they're losing the larger picture.


It's a generational thing, maybe. My mom would refer to the girl as a "little chickiepoo" and my black friend's mom would refer to her as a "heifer". Both are of the attitude that teenaged girls who don't know when to shut up need a good smack in the mouth.

AmPat
12-01-2011, 01:23 PM
The Brownback case was more about people's fear of internet monitoring than about one rude little girl.

This case of the pastor getting death threats, however, is in another league entirely. These kinds of threats, by the way, are one reason why Prop 8 donors did not want their names made public. They were afraid of just this kind of threat.

I'd post it in public, send the family away to another state, and wait for the little filthy buggers to come by for a visit. My guess is a 12 gauge stuck three inches down their throat would take the fight right out of them.:cool:

MrsSmith
12-01-2011, 06:08 PM
What is "suppression of free speech"? Your free speech is only protected by the constitution, for you, from the government. Suppression of free speech? Sounds like intimidation. At some level, intimidation is illegal- that is the crime, not "suppression of free speech".

Credible threats are illegal. Some whackjob on the street corner or in the pulpit claiming that he or God is going to strike you down through the magic of thought, is not a credible threat. I would guess than anyone who calls this jackass pastor over and over isn't a credible threat either, but that's up to the police.


Did you have a point?


Point 1: requests for apologies do not constitute threats to free speech even if the requester is a government employee.
Point 2: threats of violence have a far more chilling action on free speech than requests for apologies.
Point 3: our media is fixated on widely publishing any story that paints conservatives or Christians in a negative light, but carefully shields liberal and leftist speech and actions that would give an accurate picture of the hatres that spews from them.

For example, I'm betting many have seen the story about the church that decided not to allow inter-racial couples. This instantly made national news despite the fact that the whole church consists of 40 people. our media are so left-biased, they spin hard enough to flat lie most of the time.



I hope this works correctly. I'm on my phone...

Novaheart
12-02-2011, 01:25 AM
Point 3: our media is fixated on widely publishing any story that paints conservatives or Christians in a negative light, but carefully shields liberal and leftist speech and actions that would give an accurate picture of the hatres that spews from them.

Spare me the Christian martyr crapola. You claim that christians, conservative, or whatever it is that you whine that you are are in the majority, well that would make you the mainstream.

Odysseus
12-02-2011, 10:27 AM
Spare me the Christian martyr crapola. You claim that christians, conservative, or whatever it is that you whine that you are are in the majority, well that would make you the mainstream.

So, if we can judge a religion of of two billion people by the policies of one schismatic church of 40 members, which comprises .000000002% of the total, then we can judge gays by the substantially larger percentage that shows up at lewd public events in San Francisco every year, right? :rolleyes:

Novaheart
12-02-2011, 11:40 AM
So, if we can judge a religion of of two billion people by the policies of one schismatic church of 40 members, which comprises .000000002% of the total, then we can judge gays by the substantially larger percentage that shows up at lewd public events in San Francisco every year, right? :rolleyes:

I'm a firm believer that the answer need not have anything to do with the question, however if you expect a response then I need to know what your response has to do with what I wrote in response to Mrs. Smith's claim about the media. I can't see where I said anything about judging.

To refresh your memory:



Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSmith
Point 3: our media is fixated on widely publishing any story that paints conservatives or Christians in a negative light, but carefully shields liberal and leftist speech and actions that would give an accurate picture of the hatres that spews from them.

Novaheart :
Spare me the Christian martyr crapola. You claim that christians, conservative, or whatever it is that you whine that you are are in the majority, well that would make you the mainstream.

CueSi
12-03-2011, 01:51 AM
Spare me the Christian martyr crapola. You claim that christians, conservative, or whatever it is that you whine that you are are in the majority, well that would make you the mainstream.

Depends on what kind of Christian we're talking about, Nova. Just like how Conservative means one thing in the US than it does in other countries. . .

Just sayin.

~QC

Odysseus
12-04-2011, 10:30 PM
I'm a firm believer that the answer need not have anything to do with the question, however if you expect a response then I need to know what your response has to do with what I wrote in response to Mrs. Smith's claim about the media. I can't see where I said anything about judging.

To refresh your memory:

She stated that the church was being touted by the media as representative of Christianity. You told her to cut the crap. My response was that if it was okay to present that church as representative of the whole, then the same principle applied to other groups. It's not a complicated extension, but I have no doubt that you will present all manner of semantic quibbles to avoid dealing with it.

Novaheart
12-04-2011, 10:42 PM
She stated that the church was being touted by the media as representative of Christianity. You told her to cut the crap. My response was that if it was okay to present that church as representative of the whole, then the same principle applied to other groups. It's not a complicated extension, but I have no doubt that you will present all manner of semantic quibbles to avoid dealing with it.

Actually she said, "our media is fixated on widely publishing any story that paints conservatives or Christians in a negative light" the operative word here was "any" and that is what I was responding to. She did not confine her remark to this story or one church. And get real, how many times have you heard this ersatz martyr crap on here? Not to mention all the hypotheticals, "If it had been a (plug in conservative, republican, christian, white, etc...) then ...." ?

It's tiresome.

Odysseus
12-05-2011, 12:53 AM
Actually she said, "our media is fixated on widely publishing any story that paints conservatives or Christians in a negative light" the operative word here was "any" and that is what I was responding to. She did not confine her remark to this story or one church. And get real, how many times have you heard this ersatz martyr crap on here? Not to mention all the hypotheticals, "If it had been a (plug in conservative, republican, christian, white, etc...) then ...." ?

It's tiresome.

And the semantics begin...

First, she happens to be correct. The media is fixated on singling out opportunities to paint conservatives or Christians in a bad light. They are also not especially interested in stories with liberal villains. This is why, for example, they did everything in their power to paint the Tea Partiers as racist thugs, while bending over backwards to avoid covering the far more pervasive racism, not to mention violence, sexual assaults and outright criminality of OWS.

Second, if the repeated demonstrations of the media bias have become tedious, feel free to post elsewhere. Like the song says, we're not here for your entertainment.

Elspeth
12-05-2011, 01:27 AM
It's a generational thing, maybe. My mom would refer to the girl as a "little chickiepoo" and my black friend's mom would refer to her as a "heifer". Both are of the attitude that teenaged girls who don't know when to shut up need a good smack in the mouth.

I think you're probably right on this.