tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post6542958826290461707..comments2023-03-26T03:47:29.469-04:00Comments on Peter St. Onge: The right to remain hatefulUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-82379005310160746532011-03-27T00:48:43.041-04:002011-03-27T00:48:43.041-04:00Hey Peter,
I know it's three weeks later, but...Hey Peter,<br /><br />I know it's three weeks later, but I wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed this article. Your analysis is nice and addresses one of the fundamental issues of free speech and extremisim--whether such speech should be protected and publicized, or pushed into the shadows. I think Louis Brandeis was right when wrote that "sunlight is the best disinfectant." <br /><br />What folks like James and Phelps ignore is that their incivility taints their messages; people remember their distasteful methods and then associate their incivility with their platorm. Ironically, James and Phelps have probably done as much to advance the idea of marriage equality than other event in the last 15 years. It becomes one of those situations where a reasonable person thinks, if the Phelps are for it, I should be against it.<br /><br />Thanks again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-85461928888429768552011-03-07T10:07:27.319-05:002011-03-07T10:07:27.319-05:00Justice Roberts was clearly referring to public sp...Justice Roberts was clearly referring to public speech...this does not include for-profit corporations. This is a long settled issue. We shall hold those accountable for abusing speech and harrassing citizens based upon the color of their skin, gender, or sexual preference, particularly in a corporate setting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-45098385026698704162011-03-07T07:46:31.421-05:002011-03-07T07:46:31.421-05:00Anon 5:46.
Maybe it's just males in general w...Anon 5:46.<br /><br />Maybe it's just males in general who are more likely to be sexual predators.<br /><br />Among the homosexual community, the women seem to be much lower profile than the men, so popular images of homosexuals (particularly in the media) are primarily male, although that is changing.<br /><br />This could explain the perception that "homosexuals" in general are predators.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-47946960530837286252011-03-07T06:00:24.471-05:002011-03-07T06:00:24.471-05:00The U.S. Supreme Court's WESTBORO decision aff...The U.S. Supreme Court's WESTBORO decision affirms and honors the First Amendment. I don't have any sympathy or respect for the Westboro Baptist Church parishoners or people who torch the American flag, but these obnoxious actions are protected speech according to the Constitution and judicial precedent. The First Amendment is intended to encourage lively discussion and debate. Liberty can be annoying and offensive, but the democratic response to someone's hateful, abusive, derogatory, disgusting speech is for someone else to respond with an assertive and intelligent reply. Chief Justice John Roberts' authoritative majority opinion is a concisely reasoned and meticulously defined declaration that the First Amendment is---and must always remain--- the bedrock of public discourse in the USA.SeaSharknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-18258808517206353682011-03-06T23:28:06.372-05:002011-03-06T23:28:06.372-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-84086540399637501022011-03-06T19:27:59.953-05:002011-03-06T19:27:59.953-05:00Well, I don't hate people, but I think it'...Well, I don't hate people, but I think it's unfair that African Americans are honored for a month and we Irish Americans get one day! What's up with that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-19119207261761473672011-03-06T17:46:01.220-05:002011-03-06T17:46:01.220-05:00Homosexual means being attracted to a (post-pubert...Homosexual means being attracted to a (post-puberty) adult of the same gender body as you are. Not a child.<br /><br />I am a heterosexual female and can assure you, since age 10 I have been a victim of unwanted sexual and physical predatory behavior by heterosexual males more than once. Way more. Seems to me we might be better served to paint all HETERO males with the same brush.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-47122602261099177552011-03-06T15:44:00.377-05:002011-03-06T15:44:00.377-05:00It is not the least bit surprising to me that many...It is not the least bit surprising to me that many of the posters here, as with many stories at the CO, are most unaware of irony. The title of the piece is "The right to remain hateful". A few minutes of reflection should be enough to give pause before committing angry words to the internet, but no.<br />Until fifteen years ago those who wished to take issue publicly with the stand of a business or institution had to shout on a street corner, or equivalent. Just because the Observer provides a soapbox one need not bring his own rope.<br />John Cochranetarhoosierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10203562404036647187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-28725703836756760102011-03-06T12:24:25.408-05:002011-03-06T12:24:25.408-05:00Thanks, Anon. The alternative to that "double...Thanks, Anon. The alternative to that "double standard" is to let every comment in, regardless of whether it contains obscenity or extreme vulgarity. I don't think that's what we want, either. So we try to find a balance. Do we get it right every time? Surely not. <br /><br />Thanks to you, too, for the good discussion.<br /><br />Peterpstongehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17339785715553747223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-41605576482145166872011-03-06T12:16:49.172-05:002011-03-06T12:16:49.172-05:00Peter, At least we agree that there exists censors...Peter, At least we agree that there exists censorship as defined by the biases, belief systems and sensibilities of the author of particular CO Blogs, articles, and columns.<br />However, I find it horribly ironic that a constitutional right, which was afforded primarily to the benefit of the press at the time of its passage, is negligible as it pertains to a journalist’s readership based upon the assumption that what applies the Court’s rulings on “public boundaries” is somehow not applicable to “private boundaries.”<br />As I stated earlier, a double standard exists as a result which, based upon your explanation, dictates that those with the means to control the media, have the power to control what the masses may or may read and discuss publicly. <br /><br />In closing Peter, I have enjoyed our discussion. I will now recognize my place and just shut up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-40764338104153578332011-03-06T11:38:47.369-05:002011-03-06T11:38:47.369-05:00Anon, 11:23:
You're absolutely right. Ultima...Anon, 11:23: <br /><br />You're absolutely right. Ultimately, we are censors - here and elsewhere. When I decide that a comment has gone beyond the boundaries of taste, they are boundaries that I'm setting. Same as others who moderate comments on their blogs or for their online publications. It's the same, too, for the folks who decide which Letters to the Editor they print. <br /><br />Although the Court is reminding us that even the most distateful comments have a place in public debate and should be protected from punishment, that doesn't make the struggle to set private boundaries any less real. <br /><br />Peterpstongehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17339785715553747223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-8919224262753512402011-03-06T11:29:24.813-05:002011-03-06T11:29:24.813-05:00I think the ability to comment anonymously is very...I think the ability to comment anonymously is very valuable.<br /><br />Not only are people freer to say what they really think but they are protected from retaliation.<br /><br />When people say you should put your name on something, I am always curious why they want to know who you are.<br /><br />I received death threats years ago for criticizing Pat Robertson while he was running for president.<br /><br />My letter to the editor was printed in the Houston Chronicle and I immediately got death threats on my phone (back before the days of caller id everywhere).<br /><br />They certainly enjoyed using their anonymity.<br /><br />As long as there are people like that in the world I will choose to voice my opinions anonymously if I think they are the least bit controversial.<br /><br />As for Freedom of the Press, first, you have to own the press.<br /><br />If not, then you will be edited.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-57355298576892630792011-03-06T11:24:09.162-05:002011-03-06T11:24:09.162-05:00Nastiness? Would be far more credible if the comme...Nastiness? Would be far more credible if the comments on just one Palin story had ever been disabled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-49545005765469597502011-03-06T11:23:59.003-05:002011-03-06T11:23:59.003-05:00Nevertheless, Peter, that constitutes censorship. ...Nevertheless, Peter, that constitutes censorship. I agree that we could all do without the nasty, racial, and insulting comments, but who is really qualified to draw such a subjective line especially when we all have our own individual biases and belief systems. What is offensive to a Jew may be completely legitimate to a Christian and vice a versa. Alternatively, should we just leave such subjective standards up to the sensibilities of the majority, which I believe, but correct if I am wrong, was something the framers of the US Constitution were trying to discourage?<br /><br />I believe in the court’s doctrine pertaining to the prohibitive use of “fighting words” as well as the prohibition of “yelling ‘FIRE’ in a crowded movie-house,” but if someone wants to make a statement which violates my own bias or belief system, I must remind myself that that is the price one has to pay in order to communicate their own thoughts and beliefs freely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-87931864743200685072011-03-06T11:02:12.298-05:002011-03-06T11:02:12.298-05:00Anon, 10:51:
I'm sorry that's your takeaw...Anon, 10:51:<br /><br />I'm sorry that's your takeaway from my column. As I wrote, we all struggle with what speech we allow and what we condemn. That's true, too, for newspapers and other businesses, which must balance what's appropriate for their audiences. <br /><br />My point in my earlier comment is that although the First Amendment protects most speech from government regulation, that doesn't mean that a private entity must allow all speech. It's up to us, as businesses and individuals, to make our own choices. For me, the threshold is nastiness - not disagreement with what I'm saying. <br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Peterpstongehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17339785715553747223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-80476012723979289792011-03-06T10:54:00.619-05:002011-03-06T10:54:00.619-05:00One step in the right direction would be to allow ...One step in the right direction would be to allow only Observer subscribers to post on your website. I question whether many of the racist idiots who post on the Observer website have ever paid a dime for your newspaper. The ability to post on your site should at minimum be tied to a financial commitment to your product.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-58468671722886476932011-03-06T10:51:38.237-05:002011-03-06T10:51:38.237-05:00Therefore, the column is tongue-in-cheek. Basicall...Therefore, the column is tongue-in-cheek. Basically Peter what I infer from your column and subsequent posts is that the freedom of speech should be vigorously defended, especially as it pertains to the press, but the CO doesn't need to participate in recognizing others same right because it is not a government entity.....sure sounds like a double standard to me.<br /><br />Therein lies some of the problems with this country, Peter…different rules for different people, cultures, groups, and entities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-86799015631861053852011-03-06T10:38:49.194-05:002011-03-06T10:38:49.194-05:00Comments that ALL of ANY group are ANYTHING are pa...Comments that ALL of ANY group are ANYTHING are patently ridiculous.<br /><br />But there are groups of people who seem to tolerate certain kinds of behavior more than others, that's for sure.<br /><br />Just learn to recognize hyperbole when you see it and ignore it (or just correctly label it as such and move on to the actual facts).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-46087638559771584172011-03-06T10:17:58.120-05:002011-03-06T10:17:58.120-05:00The military families who have buried their dead a...The military families who have buried their dead and have been subjected to these shows of idiocy all need to form protests of their own and boycott that church. <br />Freedom of speech runs two ways and the other side deserves to be heard from also. Clearly couth, tact, common sense, and any sense of moral decency have gone the way of The Model T Ford...Lynne Stevensonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-34754141986264262492011-03-06T10:06:41.042-05:002011-03-06T10:06:41.042-05:00It's not the hate speech itself that is the pr...It's not the hate speech itself that is the problem so much as what we do with it.<br /><br />Do we ignore or combat it?<br /><br />If we choose to combat it, do we do so with anger?<br /><br />People who hate do so from their own fears of self. When they speak from such a vitriolic manner they are exhibiting doubt of self and lack of certainty of their own being.<br /><br />Peter is right in that we have to remove the emotion from the speech which is hard to do with something called "hate" speech. <br /><br />Perhaps we should instead label it ignorant speech?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-27266856238520640132011-03-06T09:55:45.271-05:002011-03-06T09:55:45.271-05:00As usual, 'conservatives' don't even r...As usual, 'conservatives' don't even remotely understand the beloved Constitution that they simply adore quoting. <br /><br />Let's try to break it down for you folks just a little bit. <br />I can say/type here that you are an absolute ignorant fool for quoting a portion of the Constitution without comprehending what it means, and I would obviously be free to do so, and I'd also be absolutely accurate. <br /><br />However, the Constitution that you love to quote in no way keeps the Observer's staff from editing my correct comment. The Observer is a private, non-government run entity... you know that other term that y'all love to throw around without understanding it- 'Liberty?' <br /><br />The Constitution would prohibit any Government entity from restricting my right to call you ignorant. <br /><br />It's really not that hard, but not to fear- Sarah Palin doesn't get it either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-66562881712256237222011-03-06T09:52:09.646-05:002011-03-06T09:52:09.646-05:00Anon @ 7:41,
Of course the Observer is within its...Anon @ 7:41,<br /><br />Of course the Observer is within its rights to delete comments, and I should know. The problem is their unrepentant bias as to which subjects they close comments on. I have seen several hateful articles lately on George W Bush, with dozens of spiteful attacks, yet these are never deleted. If fact, lately, I cannot even flag a post, Yes button doesn't work, only No. <br /><br />And what about some topics that have comments blocked when posted? Some of them are quite ridiculous. Anything Butler HS related, comments are never allowed. Even Wertz's HS sports blog had comments disabled on Butler topics, what's up with that? Is it even a blog if their is no dialog allowed?<br /><br />Anything conservative, or Christian, or Bill James related, anything goes. But, dear God, don't allow facts posted on anything black or Hispanic related, facts are offensive to the Observer, right Pete?Ghoulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04099647823915879139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-49738518466332768632011-03-06T09:48:49.232-05:002011-03-06T09:48:49.232-05:00I wish I too had an Observer column.
I would not ...I wish I too had an Observer column.<br /><br />I would not even ask a penny in pay.<br /><br />First I would write about the fact that the comments were stopped on the Race Stories Yesterday, yet the comments which were just as gruff were allowed to stay on the visit by a Republican coming to visit and sign books.<br /><br />Also I would write about how the Observer protected the CIAA visitors from any bad comments while they were here.<br /><br />Yes this column would have had some very.... non Observer comments but such is the nature of the animal<br /><br />Oh the Animal was created from frustration Observer as you have not one Conservative Writer or Editorial Board Member to represent we majority of subscribers who want our opinion in the paper. <br /><br />Have you not noticed that in the fact we have been dropping the paper like it was filled with liberal news? <br /><br />I know the only reason we still get it is because my wife wants the ads and you guys begged me to keep it at 105 dollar a year. <br /><br />So using Bill James again is just your usual lets get the comments going, but what about the other comments you let go unchallenged?<br /><br />I would make sure my column would have a story about the two hour sales job Jennifer Roberts is using as a get involved in the budget meetings, all the while trying to sell a tax increase along with plants in the audience. <br /><br />These meetings are also filled with people from the Govs office and Mel Watts office all they do is tell you how high taxes are everywhere else is but here, if nothing it is worth it to go and see how desperate they all are. <br /><br />But the best part is where George Dunlap, upon telling everyone that the County has over 900 million in unspent bonds mainly for our schools, said he hopes the school does not come asking for these for new schools as they are closing schools. <br /><br />Wait George. You and your group built schools in areas they were not needed and not in the areas they were needed, so people were bussed. Now you do not want these areas to get the schools needed in the areas the people had voted to get these schools? <br /><br />Why did April Betha not make sure this comment got into the Observer since she did a puff piece. But such is the way of the Observer and I guess as we have learned today that would be mean. We need to stop the meanness and go with what the Observer wants.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977808657926308272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-79814590087864426392011-03-06T09:44:40.679-05:002011-03-06T09:44:40.679-05:00Speaking of hate speech. I've never understoo...Speaking of hate speech. I've never understood why the CO allows commenting on sensitive issues. There are certain stories that people who hate these group thrive on. The CO gives them a forum to spread their hate speech. I've noticed that other papers such as the AJC that have shut down comments on most stories but allowed it on ones where the comments will be civil. I do not think the readers of the CO are "mature" enough to keep it civil at this time and the CO should reevaluate whether it should be a platform for hate speech.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4069744000849776605.post-87339397421128095802011-03-06T09:26:41.094-05:002011-03-06T09:26:41.094-05:00For all this brave talk about freedom of speech, I...For all this brave talk about freedom of speech, I appear to be the only one willing to put his name on my comment. That being said:<br /><br />To the person named Anonymous who claimed that Bill James was the only voice of reason on the board, you ought to understand that Bill James has issues.<br /><br />For most of us, homosexuality is a peripheral topic, something that we may talk about on occasion but it has little to do with our day to day lives. Not so for Bill James: it's one of his most recurring themes.<br /><br />At the risk of offering a little folk psychology, I have little doubt in my mind that it's a defense mechanism called "projection". Generally speaking, those who rail the longest and loudest are the most concerned about their own conflicted sexuality. <br /><br />One of these days, James may be exposed (so to speak) as to his real proclivities. That's just my view but I'm pretty sure I'm right.Jay Hanignoreply@blogger.com