Attytood: = Woman arrested for speaking freely right after Bush call for = "freedom...to speak freely" -- and CNN calls it "a blemish" on Hu = visit

=AB= Area=20 congressmen gone wild | Main | Oh= , for=20 Ryan out loud...Phillies game open thread =BB
Bookmark Attytood
E-mail Will Bunch=20

Woman arrested for speaking freely right after Bush = call for=20 "freedom...to speak freely" -- and CNN calls it "a blemish" on Hu = visit

Usually watching CNN with one eye as we blog = from our=20 undisclosed location doesn't give us much new fodder, except for the = occasional=20 "st= uck=20 landing gear" crisis. But today we are aghast at the coverage of = Chinese=20 President Hu Jintao at the White House.

At an outdoor ceremony, Bu= sh told=20 Hu:

China has become successful because the Chinese people are = experience the=20 freedom to buy, and to sell, and to produce -- and China can grow even = more=20 successful by allowing the Chinese people the freedom to assemble, to = speak=20 freely, and to worship.

Seconds later, one of the people assembled on the White House south = lawn=20 actually tried to speak freely right here in America -- about both the = lack of=20 free speech and religious freedom in China.

That free-speaking woman was promptly hauled = off and=20 arrested:

She shouted in heavily accented English, "President Bush: Stop him = from=20 killing" and, "President Bush, stop him from persecuting the Falun = Gong."

Bush, standing next to Hu, leaned over and whispered a comment to the = Chinese=20 leader, who paused briefly when the shouting began and then resumed his = remarks.=20

The protester was waving a banner with the red and yellow colors used = by=20 Falun Gong, a banned religious movement in China. She kept shouting for = several=20 minutes before Secret Service uniformed agents were able to make their = way to=20 her position at the top of the camera stand. They dragged her off the = stand.=20

A photographer who was standing next to the protester tried = momentarily to=20 quiet her by putting his hand in front of her mouth.

Watching the scene unfold, we felt like we were living on a different = planet=20 from the folks at CNN. Any enemy of free speech is an enemy of ours, and = we have=20 long loathed the totalitarian regime in Beijing. Like millions of other, = we=20 still see the picture of the=20 lone man standing up to a column of tanks in Tiananmen Square as the = iconic=20 picture of our times.

Why do we get the impression that President = Bush, his=20 Secret Service -- and CNN -- were rooting for the tanks.

For while we viewed the protestor as a hero, the talking heads on the = global=20 cable network were appalled at what they covered as a security = breach.

CNN's correspondent on the scene, Elaine Quijano, promptly called the = heckler=20 "a blemish, if you will, on this visit." The host, Frederica Whitfield, = promptly=20 picked up on that, calling the actual exercise of free speech "an = embarassing=20 moment for the White House."

Of course, anyone who was trying to watch the proceedings in China on = CNN=20 International probably didn't see that remark. According to Matt Drudge (we know, we = know), "During=20 CNN International's post-speech commentary, at mention of south lawn = heckler,=20 screen went black again... feed returned when topic was no longer being=20 discussed... "

Wonder who pulled the plug there -- the Chinese authorities, or = someone at=20 CNN?

We don't know, but it's clear that American companies are willing to = put up=20 with all kinds of censorship and other allegedly un-American activities = for the=20 chance to market their wares for 1.3 billion potential new customers. = Check out=20 this nauseating=20 story about Google's operation in China, the cover story in this = weekend's=20 New York Times Magazine.

It was difficult for me to know exactly how Lee [head of = operations for=20 Google in China] felt about the company's arrangement with China's = authoritarian=20 leadership. As a condition of our meeting, Google had demanded that I = not raise=20 the issue of government relations; only the executives in Google's = California=20 head office were allowed to discuss those matters. But as Lee and I = talked about=20 how the Internet was transforming China, he offered one opinion that = seemed=20 telling: the Chinese students he meets and employs, Lee said, do not = hunger for=20 democracy. "People are actually quite free to talk about the subject," = he added,=20 meaning democracy and human rights in China. "I don't think they care = that much.=20 I think people would say: 'Hey, U.S. democracy, that's a good form of=20 government. Chinese government, good and stable, that's a good form of=20 government. Whatever, as long as I get to go to my favorite Web site, = see my=20 friends, live happily.'"

Apparently, nothing trumps "the freedom to buy, and to sell, and to=20 produce."

Meanwhile, free speech continues to slide here at home. Rather than = back=20 down, the = FBI is=20 stepping up its stunning effort to confiscate papers belonging to = the estate=20 of late investigative journalist Jack Anderson:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation said on Wednesday that it will = ask the=20 Justice Department to take action if the government cannot reach an = agreement=20 with the family of the muckraking journalist Jack Anderson to search = through his=20 papers. The FBI believes that Anderson's archive, which is now held by = George=20 Washington University's library, contains classified information -- = although=20 most of it is likely decades old.

Indeed, we would love to know just what exactly Bush -- the man who, = you'll=20 remember, did not utter a word when told the United States was under = attack on=20 9/11 -- whispered to Hu this morning as that poor woman was dragged off. = Probably something like, "Check out how we deal with 'em over = here!"

Posted on April 20, 2006 11:18 = AM=20

Comments

"Any enemy of free speech is an enemy of ours, and we have long = loathed the=20 totalitarian regime in Beijing."

funny Will, I don't remember you defending the Danish newspapers = right to=20 free speech very vehemently. I guess you like to selectively defend free = sppech=20 rights.....you know...if you like the people and all.

Posted by: remo at=20 April 20, 2006 12:21 PM

I just got back from DC and visited the White House and was = ovewhelmed with=20 such a feeling of shame and embarrassment. I don't know how you can = avoid the=20 hypocrisy of this guy.

It's okay to talk about the president as long as it's "positive" = comments.=20 Any others will not be tolerated. Ask all of the Generals, Joe Wilson, = Cindy=20 Sheehan and the name of the GOP lady that got booted for wearing = t-shirts.

What a shame that we are now stuck with this guy for another 3 years. = The=20 numbers don't lie. His are in the toilet. Kind of ironic that all this = crap=20 about Bush is coming up after the 04 election....

Posted by: Dee=20 at April 20, 2006 12:56 PM

"Any enemy of free speech is an enemy of ours, and we have long = loathed the=20 totalitarian regime in Beijing."

Posted by: remo at April 20, 2006 12:21 PM

Hmmmm. You know what's more funny than that? The fact that remo here = seems to=20 think there is a legitimate free speech issue involved with the Danish = cartoon=20 story. That episode was a definite attempt to incite a reaction from the = Islamic=20 world. If in fact that was a free speech issue, where are all the other = cartoons=20 of religious icons? Seems you have some selectivity with your ability to = see=20 propaganda for what it is my friend.

Posted by: mcmadness at April 20, 2006 01:09 = PM=20

I find it hard to believe that this isn't staged. if this woman was = to=20 protest against Bush, she wouldn't have got anywhere near the venue. She = was=20 allowed to speak out to show how 'free' the US people are as a dig to = the=20 chinese. However her arrest was a typical response by security staff in = a nation=20 that has to have designated zones where free speech is allowed, just so = long as=20 nobody important has to listen to it.

Posted by: Ken=20 Hall at April 20, 2006 01:09 PM

"Any enemy of free speech is an enemy of ours, and we have long = loathed the=20 totalitarian regime in Beijing."

Posted by: remo at April 20, 2006 12:21 PM

Posted by: mcmadness at April 20, 2006 01:10 = PM=20

Do we really have a democracy? I think it fell in the year 2000 when = Bush=20 took office. The elite and coporate run our country. We get to vote so = that the=20 masses think we are free. But the voting machines are owned and used by = the=20 republican party. Sorry folks but freedom is gone.

Posted by: Imelda=20 Decker at April 20, 2006 01:16 PM

Even propaganda ( in the eyes of the beholder) and cartoons are = covered by=20 the right to free speech. How does that go? If you don't believe in free = speech=20 for opinions that you hate, you don't believe in free speech.

Posted by: Melissa=20 at April 20, 2006 01:18 PM

Regarding the corporate world's willingness to do anything for a = buck: Hello,=20 that's all they are. They are functionally sociopathic (see "The = Corporation").=20 The answer is not to try to rehabilitate them - the answer is to = acknowledge=20 them for what they are and stop placing so much faith in the so-called = "free=20 market" for our transactional human responsibilities. And to strip them = of the=20 protections which should be reserved for actual living, breathing, human = beings=20 who have an expiration date - and hence a meaning - in their = lives.

Posted by: Petro=20 at April 20, 2006 01:36 PM

The same thing would have happened with any President. Don't be such = a=20 hypocrite. If you had your way there would no discussion of religious = issues at=20 all in the public square. Is it possible this was a set up to embarass = the=20 President?

Posted by: jtf at April 20, 2006 01:36 PM =

Dumbya does not believe in free speech. He is on record as saying = "...the=20 Constitution is just a Godd***ed piece of paper..."

When told that only 1 in 1000 people in the U.S. knew what the first=20 amendment was DICK shoot-em-up Cheney said "Good, they won't miss it = when it is=20 gone."

So don't ever believe anything this little flying monkey and his = handlers=20 say.

He is supporting his buddies with cozy multimillion dollar contracts = while=20 eroding every good princilple that this great country was founded on. He = is=20 building concentration camps here in the U.S. while pretending they are = for=20 "immigration crisis".

Do you really feel safer with this smirking chimp stealing elections = and=20 taking your tax money to enrich his own fortune?

If you can answer yes to that, you are in dire need to see = Schindler's List,=20 and take careful notes. You may also want to watch The Diary of Anne = Frank=20 again.

"Despite all that has happened, I still feel that men are good at=20 heart."----Anne Frank

Posted by: KJ Lovell at April 20, 2006 = 01:41=20 PM

and to you jtf who wrote:

Is it possible this was a set up to embarass the President?

NO. The REPUGnicans are the ONLY ONES THAT TRY THIS KIND OF STUNT. =

I just wish someone would give Dumbya a BJ so we could chimpeach him = and=20 finally be done with him.

Posted by: KJ Lovell at April 20, 2006 = 01:44=20 PM

bush showed freedom of speach is going down the tubes.

Posted by: hobojo at April 20, 2006 = 01:46=20 PM

TWO--DICTATOR'S--IN WHITE HOUSE TODAY.

Posted=20 by: hobojo at April 20, = 2006 01:52=20 PM

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation said on Wednesday that it will = ask the=20 Justice Department to take action if the government cannot reach an = agreement=20 with the family of the muckraking journalist Jack Anderson to search = through his=20 papers. The FBI believes that Anderson's archive, which is now held by = George=20 Washington University's library, contains classified information -- = although=20 most of it is likely decades old. "

Will, I'm still not seeing this as a freedom of speech issue. The = left has=20 made a big deal out of "leaks" from the Bush White House, even though = the=20 president has the authority to declassify information.

But if one of your own had classified documents, that is freedom of=20 speech?

What if one of Anderson's documents compromised the identity of an = agent=20 currently in the field?

Posted by: db_cooper at April 20, 2006 = 01:53=20 PM

When peaceful revoltuion if impossible, violent revolution is = inevitable!=20 RFK

Posted by: crusader=20 bunnypants at April 20, 2006 01:55 PM

"That episode was a definite attempt to incite a reaction from the = Islamic=20 world. If in fact that was a free speech issue,"

Hmmm - this woman's outburst was a definite attempt to incite a = reaction from=20 the Chinese government. So was Tienamen Square. Using your definition, = those=20 aren't really then free speech issues.

"where are all the other cartoons of religious icons? "

They are published all the time. The Islamic press is quite fond of = bigoted=20 portrayals of Jews, for example. Christ is often mocked around the = world.

But the reaction in the Islamic world over the Danish cartoons really = didn't=20 take off until months after publication when Islamic activists forged a = few more=20 cartoons and used those to whip up a frenzy in Islamic countries.

So apparently it's OK for Islamists to forge mockeries of the = Prophet. But=20 not for Danes to express far tamer statments.

Posted by: db_cooper at April 20, 2006 = 01:59=20 PM

"The same thing would have happened with any President. "

Yep.

http://www.injusticeline.com/freespch.html

CLINTON REJECTS FREEDOM OF SPEECH
He allows citizens to be = arrested for=20 criticizing him
Patricia and Glenn Mendoza victims of disturbing new=20 trend

----------------------------------------------------------------------= ----------

Patricia Mendoza of Westchester, Illinois was unfortunate enough to = be in=20 Chicago this summer (1996) at the same time as our President, Bill = Clinton. She=20 was also unfortunate enough to express her criticism of our = leader.
As you=20 know, there was an incident not long ago in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, where = an=20 explosion, probably set off by a terrorist, killed 19 servicemen. Some = feel that=20 Bill Clinton caused or contributed to the cause of these murders. I = personally=20 disagree. It is not the President's job to micromanage security = arrangements at=20 military bases. However, there is certainly cause for disagreement over = whether=20 the U.S. should be using its military to prop up a dictatorship. I = believe=20 Clinton has only limited responsibility for continuing a policy handed = down to=20 him by President Bush, and that his continuing the policy of supporting = Saudi=20 Arabia is not the same as causing the deaths.

Regardless of what my views are, Mrs. Mendoza apparently does feel = that=20 Clinton is responsible. At an event known as the Taste of Chicago, she = allegedly=20 said to him "You suck. And those boys died."

Fifteen minutes after Clinton left, she was arrested for her = comments. Her=20 husband Glenn shouted out to her that she might need a lawyer. This = intolerable=20 use of speech caused him to be arrested as well.

As Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Sun-Times reported, this was not the = only such=20 incident. In 1993, William Kelly of Chicago was arrested for shouting to = Clinton=20 asking where was the middle class tax cut.

---------

And of course, we should never forget the mother of all false = prosecutions=20 for protesting - that our very own Lynn Abraham's office prosecuted = anti-Clinton=20 protestor Don Adams for assaulting the fists of Teamsters with his = face.

Will Bunch at least has condemned that episode, to his credit. Too = many on=20 the left downplayed it, including Rendell's office (he was mayor at the=20 time).

So is this truly about freedom of speech? Or just political=20 expediency?

Posted by: db_cooper at April 20, 2006 = 02:04=20 PM

Funny, when you say something that is the truth and it strikes a = REPUGnican=20 up against their nut-job brain,

they spend twelve comments trying to convince everyone that up is = down.

(Or is the nut-job trying to convince himself?)

In some REPUGnican's case I don't believe they ever evolved. They are = much=20 like a hateful little virus that keeps reproducing and mutating into = more vile=20 virus strains.

Anywhooooo.... can someone just give Dumbya a BJ so we can CHIMPeach = him and=20 be done with him?

Posted by: KJ Lovell at April 20, 2006 = 02:12=20 PM

DB,

Both your comments are thoughtful -- but it strikes me that the free = speech=20 you tend to be defending here tends to be that of the more powerful to = say=20 things to hurt or inflame the less powerful, whereas my instinct is to = defend=20 those of the less powerful to speak truth to power, as it were.
By = that, I=20 mean:
-- yes, I believe that President Bush has a right to declassify = documents, but that doesn't mean I should or can support the White = House's=20 attempt to crush a whistleblower, eventually stooping to a level = (disclosing the=20 guy's wife was an undercover spy) that borders on the illegal.
-- = yes, I=20 believe that Danish newspapers have a right to publish whatever they = want, but=20 on the free speech scale, I can't get too excited about using that right = to=20 offend people's religion (and decent Muslims were offended, not just=20 extremists).
As I think I've noted before, I will pretty much defend = the=20 right of people to say anything (even "Nazis marching in Skokie-type = stuff) but=20 if it's wrong I will expend the majority of my energy bashing their=20 message.
As for Anderson's papers maybe having the name of an = undercover=20 agent, you don't know that and neither does the FBI. It's a fishing = expedition=20 -- nornally you would oppose that sort of thing, DB.

Posted by: will=20 at April 20, 2006 02:12 PM

Anderson was on Nixon's "enemies list" and J.E. Hoover hated the = man.

Anderson was a great man, that does what the media today refuses to=20 do....Actually Report and Investigate.

As far as his papers, the FBI is just trying to fish for information. = If they=20 had something in mind that they were after, they would tell the family = what=20 exactly it is and that would be it.

The FBI is trying to re-write history ....the history that was = written by=20 Anderson.

By 2025 (if we are even still here- thanks dumbya) The history books = will be=20 re-written to say that dumbya was actually the best p-Resident in the = history of=20 the U.S. That is unless truth, justice, free speech and equality can = fight back=20 and restore the integrity of the U.S.A.

Posted by:=20 KJ Lovell at April 20, 2006 = 02:18=20 PM

So why am I not surprised at Bunch and all the phony liberals = selective=20 memory when they cry all these crocodile tears over free speech and the = 'right=20 to protest' issues? There wasn't a peep from these shysters when Don and = Teri=20 Adams were beaten up by the Teamster union-goons back on Oct. 2, 1998 = during a=20 Bill Clinton rally when THEY were exercising their right to free speech = and to=20 peaceably protest. These union-goons were there at the request of Mayor = Ed=20 Rendell ( as he had to admit in a court later), so they were there in a = official=20 capacity. To make matters even worse, Don and Teri Adams were arrested = and=20 charged with crimes by the Philly police while then Mayor Ed Rendell had = a good=20 laugh about it on the TV evening news shows, when he made a joke about = the whole=20 sordid thing. Not a peep from any liberal; not a peep from the MSM; not = a peep=20 from the Stinkquirer or the Philly Daily News; not a peep from the ACLU; = not a=20 peep from Will Bunch--who in one of his earlier posts admitted that he = was there=20 at the time on a different assignment. DN "journalist"(?) Bunch then = also never=20 made a big deal out of this outrage and violation of free speech and the = right=20 to protest peaceably that he's so "troubled over" now. He never made a = peep=20 about it after this outrage either (which he could have done later as a = DN=20 journalist). He could have written about it later expressing his = outrage, but=20 guess what? He didn't.
All you liberal shysters now crying your = crocodile=20 tears over a supposedly violation by the Bush administration over our = rights=20 being trampled, is all political. You guys didn't give a s*** then, and = you=20 don't give a s*** now about our rights being violated. What you want is = a=20 political issue that you can use to bash-Bush. What a bunch of = creeps!

Posted by: Arn=20 at April 20, 2006 02:36 PM

"What if one of Anderson's documents compromised the identity of an = agent=20 currently in the field?"

Hmmm. Valerie Plame, anyone?

Posted = by: Talking point detective at = April 20,=20 2006 02:55 PM

Remo and db cooper. Is there freedom of speech to scream fire in a = crowded=20 theater? No. Not all speech is protected or deserves protection.

The Danish cartoons fall into the latter category. Unlike the = Whitehouse=20 heckler, or burning the flag, the Danish cartoons were not a legitimate=20 expression of dissent. They were reckless insults. The cartoonist and = publishers=20 have the freedom to publish the cartoons, but we have the equal freedom = to point=20 out they were reckless in doing so. Just like we can point out, instead = of=20 defending under freedom of speech, that screaming fire in a crowded = theater is=20 reckless.

Posted by: Pugsly at April 20, 2006 03:04 = PM

So why am I not surprised at Bunch....BLAH..BLAH...BLAH..... all the = phony=20 liberals selectiveBLAH..BLAH...BLAH.. from the MSM; not a peep from the=20 Stinkquirer BLAH..BLAH...BLAH.. the Bush administration IS THE GREATEST = THING IN=20 HISTORY!!!!! BLAH..BLAH...BLAH..issue that you can use to bash-Bush. = What a=20 bunch of creeps!...SAME OLD GOP SLOP/RAP...repeat...

Posted by Arn at April 20, 2006 02:36 PM

Why are still here Chickenhawk????? Your recruiter is waiting for = TOUGH=20 TALKING NON THINKING SS types such as yourself to fight the FAILING = NOBLE CAUSE=20 IN IRAQ.

So what is the reason for the IRaq war this week have they got a = Government=20 yet??? Why aren't you there NeoCon Moron?

Posted by: Ted = Kennedy:=20 Having a few and reading the WINGNUT SAME OLE ..SAME OLE..and still = calling the=20 shots unlike all those indicted GOP SCUMBAGS at April 20, 2006 03:10 = PM

"Both your comments are thoughtful -- but it strikes me that the free = speech=20 you tend to be defending here tends to be that of the more powerful to = say=20 things to hurt or inflame the less powerful, whereas my instinct is to = defend=20 those of the less powerful to speak truth to power, as it were."

I am both discussing the nature of free speech as raised by other = posters and=20 pointing out the paradoxes in such. I do agree free speech, at the end = of the=20 day, is best done to hold the powerful to account, so we're not too far = apart=20 there.

"- yes, I believe that President Bush has a right to declassify = documents,=20 but that doesn't mean I should or can support the White House's attempt = to crush=20 a whistleblower, eventually stooping to a level (disclosing the guy's = wife was=20 an undercover spy) that borders on the illegal."

Two points on this - if you are truly concerned about the = ramifications of a=20 covert being outed in Plamegate (assuming one was truly outed, which you = do),=20 then you shouldn't have a problem with a prefunctory review of = Anderson's=20 document trove, given that he clearly had access to classified documents = in the=20 past, and some of his stories had a direct impact on intel gathering=20 capabilities in the past, as I noted on an earlier thread.

And second, you and I have very different views on the Plame matter, = so I'm=20 not gonna congest this thread on that, it has been discussed ad naseum = and I=20 don't see a need to resurrect it here, as I doubt our respective = opinions on=20 that will change.

"-- yes, I believe that Danish newspapers have a right to publish = whatever=20 they want, but on the free speech scale, I can't get too excited about = using=20 that right to offend people's religion (and decent Muslims were = offended, not=20 just extremists)."

IMO, Will, you are missing the larger point. Whether the speech is = offensive=20 or not is secondary. What is critical is that a group feels that threats = of=20 violence are justified to prevent someone else from free expression. = Today,=20 cartoons of the prophet. Tomorrow, beer ads. The next day, force women = to wear=20 burkas? Radical Islam has some major compatibility problems with western = values=20 regarding basic freedom expression. I find it odd that the left is = concerned=20 about fundamentalist Christianity but fails to see the far more serious = threat=20 here. Trying to say the Prophet cartoons are about something else than = that=20 misses the threat. And it is a serious threat - just ask Rushdie.

"As I think I've noted before, I will pretty much defend the right of = people=20 to say anything (even "Nazis marching in Skokie-type stuff) but if it's = wrong I=20 will expend the majority of my energy bashing their message."

No disagreement from me on that one. You do walk the walk as well as = talk the=20 talk on your forum.

"As for Anderson's papers maybe having the name of an undercover = agent, you=20 don't know that and neither does the FBI. It's a fishing expedition -- = nornally=20 you would oppose that sort of thing, DB."

I do agree it is somewhat of a fishing expedition. But, then again, = much of=20 government nowadays is such.

I was pointing to it to show the paradox between some of your = attitudes on=20 Plamegate and the free speech issues you see with Anderson's=20 papers.

Posted by: db_cooper at April 20, 2006 = 03:11=20 PM

"The Danish cartoons fall into the latter category. Unlike the = Whitehouse=20 heckler, or burning the flag, the Danish cartoons were not a legitimate=20 expression of dissent. They were reckless insults. The cartoonist and = publishers=20 have the freedom to publish the cartoons, but we have the equal freedom = to point=20 out they were reckless in doing so."

This is about far more than saying they were reckless. This is about = death=20 threats - and not idle ones.

I am truly concerned that so many on the left fail to understand that = fundamental and critical difference.

Posted by: db_cooper at April 20, 2006 = 03:15=20 PM

"So why am I not surprised at Bunch and all the phony liberals = selective=20 memory when they cry all these crocodile tears over free speech and the = 'right=20 to protest' issues? There wasn't a peep from these shysters when Don and = Teri=20 Adams were beaten up by the Teamster union-goons back on Oct. 2, = 1998"

Arn, Will has condemned all that.

Posted by: db_cooper at April 20, 2006 = 03:16=20 PM

remo

The alleged sins of others do not absolve you of yours. The arrest is = apalling regardless of whether or not some blogger agreed with = it.

Posted by: blogeosta at April 20, 2006 = 03:17=20 PM

No matter what is said or why it is said, one cannot morally exempted = another=20 from freedom of speech just because one finds the speech repugnant. = Freedom of=20 speech is not fought with censorship but with more speech.

The political left and the political right are not fighting for any=20 individual right or even equality or justice they are fighting for power = to=20 control others...plane and simple. They have no other interest at heart = but=20 their own.

Posted by: CensoredAgain at April 20, = 2006 03:20=20 PM

Im just glad Im not Amerikkkan ...... You people are just way to = funny, in a=20 mornic inbred type of way..

Posted by: Me Here at April 20, 2006 = 03:37=20 PM

"The Danish cartoons fall into the latter category. Unlike the = Whitehouse=20 heckler, or burning the flag, the Danish cartoons were not a legitimate=20 expression of dissent."

Funny, I don't see a qualifier in the First as to what determines = legitimate=20 dissent.

Posted by: db_cooper at April 20, 2006 = 03:39=20 PM

I don't think arresting someone who's interrupting a speech with = shouts and=20 screams is quite the same as suppressing first amendment rights. There = are more=20 straightforwardly legal ways to protest--in front of where an event is = being=20 held, by holding meetings for one's own cause, by writing, through media = ads.=20

Whatever your opinion on China's authoritarian policies, for reasons = of=20 diplomacy that even HENRY KISSINGER, one of the staunchist = anti-communists=20 *ever*, recognized, they're another superpower which must be treated = delicately=20 and respectfully for purely pragmatic reasons.

Posted by: blurt at April 20, 2006 = 03:56=20 PM

The reason the Danish free speech issue is a non-issue here is that = Denmark=20 is not covered by the United States' first amendment.

Posted by: Jess=20 Wundrun at April 20, 2006 04:05 PM

db cooper,
for what it's worth, I tend to agree about the Danish=20 cartoons. They were inflammatory, but tough shit. Free speech isn't = about=20 popular speech. Those cartoons are absolutely acceptable speech. That = said, it's=20 hilarious to see right-wing knees jerk. Free speech? Danish cartoons. No = WMD in=20 Iraq? Everyone thought that, even Clinton. Same talking points daily.=20 yawn.

Posted by: Gus at April 20, 2006 04:17 = PM

"The reason the Danish free speech issue is a non-issue here is that = Denmark=20 is not covered by the United States' first amendment."

This is a thread about the First Amendment, Jess. Folks are raising = the=20 "Crying Fire" argument against the Prophet cartoons, which is a classic = First=20 Amendment scenario.

And beyond that, the West needs to realize that it must stand up to = the=20 demands of radicals who think threats of violence are an acceptable way = to block=20 opinions they don't like.

Posted by: db_cooper at April 20, 2006 = 04:27=20 PM

Hyperbolically hypocritical violation of human rights!

Posted by: Vic = Anderson at=20 April 20, 2006 04:37 PM

"And beyond that, the West needs to realize that it must stand up to = the=20 demands of radicals who think threats of violence are an acceptable way = to block=20 opinions they don't like."

No one on this thread is justifying the violence in reaction to the = cartoons.=20 They only point out that the cartoons were intended to be inflammatory, = and need=20 to be considered within that context. Shouting fire in a crowded theater = is a=20 valid analogy. You can condem such an action even as you would condem a = crowd=20 that staged a riot in reaction to someone shouting fire in a crowded = theater=20 (when there was no fire, obviously).

The Danish government and newspaper publishers were not faultless. = The=20 publishers deliberately antagonized Muslims and the government failed to = take=20 reasonable steps after the fact to help deflate the situation, and they = are both=20 right-wing entities that used the situation for political purposes.

Obviously, the violence in reaction was wrong on a different scale, = as were=20 the intolerant radical Islamists who used the publication of the = cartoons to=20 incite violence.

But sticking you head in the sand and ingnoring entirely predictable = outcomes=20 from your actionsin the name of principle may not be as contemptable as = killing=20 someone for exercising their free speech rights, but it is just plain = stupid and=20 counter-productive. (See trying to promote Democracy at the muzzle of a = gun by=20 invading Iraq).

Posted by: Talking point detective at = April 20,=20 2006 04:45 PM

"No one on this thread is justifying the violence in reaction to the=20 cartoons. "

TPD, it goes beyond the rioting in the Muslim countries. It is about = the use=20 of serious threats of death against the cartoonists and the publishers = of the=20 paper. It is about Iran issuing a fatwah and a bounty against them. And = it is=20 about the notion that threats of violence are an acceptable = counteraction=20 against opinions or images you disagree with.

After all, this happened against Rushdie long before the Iraq War. = And he is=20 a liberal by nature. It's about far more than politics, although the = left seems=20 to want to think it is that. It is about how we deal with a large entity = that=20 does not share our basic values of expression. Because far more of our = values=20 offend them than just cartoonists.

And the offense was deliberately stoked by Islamist radicals. They = created=20 additional, far more offensive cartoons (one was proven to be a picture = from a=20 pig-calling contest in France that had been altered) and then took them = to=20 Muslim countries months after the initial publication and used them to = whip up=20 unrest. It shows the absurdity here - that these activists have no = problem=20 creating their own defamations of the Prophet to create a political = movement. So=20 the basic underlying offense is not the real issue here. Generating = anger=20 against Western values is.

But at the end of the day, if they want to stifle expression in their = own=20 countries, so be it. But the west needs to stand up and not allow them = to stifle=20 expression in ours by threatening harm upon those they disagree=20 with.

Posted by: db_cooper at April 20, 2006 = 04:56=20 PM

Sorry fellow empty headed supporters of this failed REGIME...more bad = news=20 from our beloved and "ALWAYS RIGHT" Fox NEws. As Ross Perot would say: = that=20 sucking sound you hear is the Bush Admin going down the TUBES!

FOX Poll: Gloomy Economic Views; Bush Approval at New Low 33%

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.html

Posted by: Swill=20 O'Reilly-GOP Blowhard and White House Shill at April 20, 2006 05:11=20 PM

"And beyond that, the West needs to realize that it must stand up to = the=20 demands of radicals who think threats of violence are an acceptable way = to block=20 opinions they don't like"

and

"But at the end of the day, if they want to stifle expression in = their own=20 countries, so be it. But the west needs to stand up and not allow them = to stifle=20 expression in ours by threatening harm upon those they disagree = with"

Since we are not in Denmark, I say let the Danes deal with it. Let's = call=20 this stupid cartoon controversary for what it is: an attempt by = rightwingers in=20 this country to stir a pot that doesn't need stirring. If our government = fails=20 to protect us were we in the same situation, then it would be the ACLU = as our=20 next line of defense. Move along.

Since we are in America, I would like to hear all the righties that = are so=20 inflamed about the muslims reaction to the Danish cartoons give Michelle = Malkin=20 the same raft of grief over inciting death threats against American = college=20 students who oppose the war in Iraq. Make those two statements above = apply=20 equally to the reckless actions of Malkin.

Posted=20 by: Jess Wundrun at April 20, = 2006 05:11=20 PM

"The publishers deliberately antagonized Muslims"

Hitch has the response to this point:

Cartoon Debate - The case for mocking religion.

Christopher Hitchens

http://www.slate.com/id/2135499/

-- snip to last two paragraphs --

The question of "offensiveness" is easy to decide. First: Suppose = that we all=20 agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid offending the believers? = How could=20 we ever be sure that we had taken enough precautions? On Saturday, I = appeared on=20 CNN, which was so terrified of reprisal that it "pixilated" the very = cartoons=20 that its viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., = arose=20 because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which = nobody had=20 ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined = to be=20 "offended" will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly = adjust=20 enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the = attempt.

Second (and important enough to be insisted upon): Can the discussion = be=20 carried on without the threat of violence, or the automatic resort to = it? When=20 Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses in 1988, he did so in the = hope of=20 forwarding a discussion that was already opening in the Muslim world, = between=20 extreme Quranic literalists and those who hoped that the text could be=20 interpreted. We know what his own reward was, and we sometimes forget = that the=20 fatwa was directed not just against him but against "all those involved = in its=20 publication," which led to the murder of the book's Japanese translator = and the=20 near-deaths of another translator and one publisher. I went on Crossfire = at one=20 point, to debate some spokesman for outraged faith, and said that we on = our side=20 would happily debate the propriety of using holy writ for literary and = artistic=20 purposes. But that we would not exchange a word until the person on the = other=20 side of the podium had put away his gun. (The menacing Muslim bigmouth = on the=20 other side refused to forswear state-sponsored suborning of = assassination, and=20 was of course backed up by the Catholic bigot Pat Buchanan.) The same = point=20 holds for international relations: There can be no negotiation under = duress or=20 under the threat of blackmail and assassination. And civil society means = that=20 free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression = might be=20 inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious = precepts, and it=20 is positively outrageous that the administration should have discarded = them at=20 the very first sign of a fight.

Posted = by: db_cooper at April 20, 2006 = 05:14=20 PM

China - The Country Google, Gates, Yahoo! & Cisco Bow To

http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20041202_2.htm

Warning. The above link, has graphic pictures. It shows the = horror,of how=20 the government in China, treats their citizens. Citizens who speak out = against=20 the government.

People, wake up! The Zionists are running the banks, the Zionists = created=20 Communism!

Israel and the US Government were behind 911. Israel runs all = television in=20 the United States, movies, newspapers.

They are allies to nobody, except themselves, and their greed for a = One World=20 Government!

http://whatreallyhappened.com/index.html

http://www.rense.com/

Posted by: = louis at April 20, 2006 05:18 = PM=20

"Since we are not in Denmark, I say let the Danes deal with it."

Oh, the threats will come to American sooner or later, Jess. That's = what=20 happens when you fail to stand up to thugs - it emboldens other = like-minded=20 thugs.

"Let's call this stupid cartoon controversary for what it is: an = attempt by=20 rightwingers in this country to stir a pot that doesn't need = stirring."

Jess, that's the entire problem. You see this as right-wing politics. = But it=20 is far deeper than that. As I noted before, Rushdie is a liberal and he = has been=20 under fatwa for many years.

"If our government fails to protect us were we in the same situation, = then it=20 would be the ACLU as our next line of defense. Move along."

Jess, if an Islamist radical ever attacked you for not wearing a = burka, I=20 would hope you would be smart enough to call the cops instead of the = ACLU.

"Since we are in America, I would like to hear all the righties that = are so=20 inflamed about the muslims reaction to the Danish cartoons give Michelle = Malkin=20 the same raft of grief over inciting death threats against American = college=20 students who oppose the war in Iraq."

Several points here, Jess.

First of all, please show where Malkin incited death threats. She = posted=20 contact information that the organizers had made public in a press = release.

Second anyone on either side in the Malkin mess who made any threat = of=20 violence or death should be investigated and prosecuted for terroristic=20 threats.

And third, it is still an absurd comparison to Islamists. Most of = those=20 pinheads pushing death-threat emails are probably sniveling cowards who = would=20 not carry out such. Compare that to the fact that one person associated = with the=20 publication of Rushdie's book was murdered and two others were almost = murdered.=20

"Make those two statements above apply equally to the reckless = actions of=20 Malkin."

You apparently are more concerned about the antics of internet = keyboard=20 adolescents than you are about Islamist movements with a proven history = of=20 murder and violence and the political and financial backing of = governments.

That's really pretty sad, Jess. You accuse the right wing of = politicizing=20 this but in the end you are the one making the absurd political=20 comparisons.

Posted by: db_cooper at April 20, 2006 = 05:25=20 PM

"People, wake up! The Zionists are running the banks, the Zionists = created=20 Communism! Israel and the US Government were behind 911. "

It's the evil JOOOOS! They're behind EVERYTHING!

Only hard-core losers blame the Joos.

Posted by:=20 db_cooper at April 20, 2006 = 05:29=20 PM

Greetings:
Why waste time in such stupid attacks on China's = lack of=20 free speech, etc...
Prior to the Communist take over of China,back in = 1949,=20 there was no free speech either under our good friend and poodle Tchang=20 Kai-chekh?
China was a Western Semi-Colony since the 18s century. Our = Navy=20 was plying the waters of the Yangtzee, protecting our parasitic=20 Missionaries.
As if China needed our form of religion?
Post = Mao,China=20 managed to moved some 400.000 citizens up from poverty this past 25 = years, this=20 is a no mean Civil Right achievement, for those who consider freedom = from=20 starvation a civil right?
Why dont we try to have some serious free = speech=20 and democracy right here at home, with our 40 millions on poverty level, = before=20 we start spreading our warped ideas abroad.
Privet

Posted by: Krapotkin at April 20, 2006 = 05:31=20 PM

There is no need to worry and argue so much about what Bush is doing = (or=20 trying to do). He is imploding upon himself faster than we can organize = an=20 effective campaign against him. The American justice system is still = working,=20 it's just working very slowly. Keep in mind that no president has ever = tested=20 our system like this before. And consequently, no president has ever = turned so=20 many apathetic people into die hard patriots like Bush has. The best = thing to do=20 now is observe what Bush can't accomplish...

1) He can't impose a military draft.
2) He can't enforce martial=20 law.
3) He can't get more money for more wars.
4) He can't get = global=20 support for anything that involves war.
5) He can't even get support = from his=20 own party anymore.

So just kick back, relax and enjoy watching the show. I guarantee you = it has=20 a happy ending.

Posted by: joe because i know at April 20, = 2006 05:31=20 PM

Unfortunately I have consistently observed on blog sites like this = (and the=20 comments that follow): a problem of injustice is presented. Then a whole = philosophy of opinions follow; some scarcasms; others, further = explanations of=20 the problems; but hardly do I ever see a viable solution, or even a = reasonable=20 alternative. Most of the time people have missed the point.
The way = to=20 solving any problem is to first attempt to understand the root-cause. = That as a=20 matter of fact is half the solution. Then a proven solution must = follow.
All=20 these injustices are happening because of the __value-system__ of the = people who=20 are victim. This value-system is basically invented by a few elite = humans who=20 then _enforce_ them upon the people they rule. The root-cause: who/what = do the=20 people consider as their "god" or "God". What "god" or "God" are they=20 subservient to, so much so that the people are obeying the "laws" of = this=20 "god/God" and are still facing injustices?
Islam has had the answer = to this=20 "secular" problem for 1400 years now. And the re-establishment of the = Islamic=20 Khilafah within the next 30 years will pave the way for a freedom loving = people=20 who are subservient to no human!
By-the-way, things are going to get = worse=20 especially in the secular west/middle/east as the hidden face of tyranny = shows=20 in secular-capitalism.

Posted by: Name at April 20, 2006 05:34 = PM=20

Posted by: Krapotkin at April 20, 2006 = 05:35=20 PM

So just kick back, relax and enjoy watching the show. I guarantee you = it has=20 a happy ending.

Posted by: joe because i know at April 20, = 2006 05:39=20 PM

"Islam has had the answer to this "secular" problem for 1400 years = now."

Sorry, but we've seen your answer and don't think much of it.

"And the re-establishment of the Islamic Khilafah within the next 30 = years=20 will pave the way for a freedom loving people who are subservient to no=20 human!"

Except for the humans deciding how the rest of us should live under = Sharia=20 law.

I'll pass.

Posted by: db_cooper at April 20, 2006 = 05:40=20 PM

"Post Mao,China managed to moved some 400.000 citizens up from = poverty this=20 past 25 years, this is a no mean Civil Right achievement, for those who = consider=20 freedom from starvation a civil right?"

Gawd, and now a ChiCom sympathizer. We had one on Free Republic as = well,=20 claiming China doesn't kill political prisoners.

Poverty in this country, dude, is still far materially better off = than=20 middle-class in your country. So stuff your claims of = superiority.

Posted by: db_cooper at April 20, 2006 = 05:58=20 PM

Again, db, it seems that you think that someone is defending the = actions of=20 the radical Islamists re: the cartoons or Rushdie. I haven't seen = that.

I consider religious intolerance a threat to freedom across the = board. And=20 certainly fundamentalist Islam is a prime candidate. Mormon = fundamentalists,=20 although there are obviously fewer or them, are very similar in nature = (try=20 reading Under the Banner of Heaven, by Krakauer, for descriptions of = their=20 misogyny and how they systematically rape children and commit incest and = murder=20 in the name of their religion).

And my concern is how to work against misogyny, intolerance, etc., in = an=20 effective way. Focusing exclusively on the Muslim fundamentalists, and=20 exaggerating the free speech implications of the Danish cartoon = situation is=20 ineffective. Ignoring the motivations and mistakes made by the = right-wing in=20 that situation is similarly counter-productive. And ill-considered = military=20 action in the Middle East is equally as dangerous as ignoring the threat = that=20 radical Islam represents.

Hitchens' argument misses the point. No one here is saying that = insensitivity=20 should be counter-acted by violence - only that it should be recognized = for what=20 it is, and that the ramifications of insensitivity shouldn't be excused = in the=20 name of some over-arching sense of moral superiority.

Posted by: Talking=20 point detective at April 20, 2006 05:59 PM

Sorry, Y'all; As a pretty hardcore leftist, I find myself agreeing = with (my=20 god) db on the Danish cartoons. The analogy with yelling 'fire' in a = crowded=20 theatre isn't valid. To yell fire in a crowded theatre would be to = incite panic,=20 to put people in immediate fear for their lives and cause, not a "riot", = but a=20 blind stampede for the exits. No time to reflect, little chance of = countering=20 the argument, little ability to overcome the reaction of the = panic-stricken in=20 your immediate physical presence. The Danish cartoons were an = incitement, but so=20 what? In a free country, we let people incite. I seem to remember some = Nazis=20 marching in Skokie, IL, and have you read Michelle Malkin's blog lately = (and I=20 don't mean her publishing those addresses; I'm pretty sure that's = actionable)? I=20 believe incitement should be fought against, not prevented -- let the = inciter=20 reap the whirlwind of their own words, in a court of law, in the court = of public=20 opinion, or with physical violence: there are laws against sticks and = stones,=20 and the incited should be free to make their own mistakes. Inflammatory = speech=20 comes in myriad forms, so where do we draw the line?
The anti-Jewish = and=20 anti-Western cartoons and opinions that are published commonly in the = Muslim=20 world (especially by our good friends in the Egyptian goverment) are = horrifying=20 bigoted, i.e., very inciting. Well, turnabout is fair play. I don't = believe in=20 cultural exceptions for female circumcision, beheading homosexuals, = forced=20 marriage, or "honor killings" (does anyone else see a trend here?), so I = sure=20 don't believe in them for people who incite, but won't be = incited.

Posted by: Slappy at=20 April 20, 2006 06:03 PM

"The Danish cartoons were an incitement, but so what?"

Ok then, by extending the same logic: Muslims rioted in reaction, so=20 what?

"The anti-Jewish and anti-Western cartoons and opinions that are = published=20 commonly in the Muslim world (especially by our good friends in the = Egyptian=20 goverment) are horrifying bigoted, i.e., very inciting. Well, turnabout = is fair=20 play. I don't believe in cultural exceptions for female circumcision, = beheading=20 homosexuals, forced marriage, or "honor killings" (does anyone else see = a trend=20 here?), so I sure don't believe in them for people who incite, but won't = be=20 incited."

Try reading about the beliefs of fundamentalist jews, many of whom = for=20 example, believe that homsexuals should be executed.

I don't quite get your logic. Muslims publish "horrifying" bigoted = cartoons,=20 so lets do it too? And lets ignore the ramifications of doing so because = we=20 believe in free speech?

I, for one, am not saying that we should "draw the line" by = prohibiting free=20 speech. But that's not the same thing as saying that I think we should = ignore=20 the motivations of those involved. Nor is the same thing as saying we = should=20 ignore simple logic, and consideration of how to deflate and undermine = radical=20 Islam rather than feed the fire.

Posted = by: Talking point detective at = April 20,=20 2006 06:11 PM

While that poor women was trying to make a point before the whole = world, Bush=20 softly whispered to China's dictator, "Don't worry, your allright."

Some fat ass security gaurds pushed their way through the crowd of = onlookers=20 and promptly threw the protestor into the back of a government vehicle. = She=20 broke many US laws and will be charged accordingly. Free speech in = America is=20 OK, as long as you do it quietly.

Posted = by: BillyG=20 at April 20, 2006 06:25 PM

Incitement is in the eye of the beholder.

Does the South Park Episode where the Virgin Mary shits blood on the = Pope=20 supposed to incite catholics ?

Or the one where they said that child molestation was part of the = catholic=20 church's doctrine, which was gotten from a giant spider?

The Danish cartoons were speech and it should be free.

Do you think CNN should cover the cartoons as a "security concern" = like they=20 did with this woman?

Don't be a stupid hypocrite.

Posted = by: Jason at April 20, 2006 = 06:32=20 PM

Try to keep up, TPD;

If muslims, or anyone else, riots, they are doing physical violence. = That's=20 the line you don't cross without justified repercussions. Sticks and = stones,=20 remember?

I was just having dinner last night with some fundamentalist Jews. = They don't=20 believe much in equality of the sexes, but they honor women in some = truly=20 beautiful ways. There may be some Jews who advocate killing homosexuals, = but=20 it's not the policy of any mainline sect, much less a nation.

No, we shouldn't ignore the motivations of those who incite; I just = don't=20 think they should be prevented from speaking (different from 'doing=20 violence').

Should we publish inciting cartoons just because they do? I think we = should=20 publish whatever we want. Insults don't help, but threats are worse.

Best of luck "deflating and undermining" radical Islam. Like = "deflating and=20 undermining" a mugger, I suppose? Great if you can do it, but sometimes, = TPD,=20 you have to actually push back.

Posted = by: slappy at April 20, 2006 06:32 = PM=20

Incitement is in the eye of the beholder.

Does the South Park Episode where the Virgin Mary shits blood on the = Pope=20 supposed to incite catholics ?

Or the one where they said that child molestation was part of the = catholic=20 church's doctrine, which was gotten from a giant spider?

The Danish cartoons were speech and it should be free.

Do you think CNN should cover the cartoons as a "security concern" = like they=20 did with this woman?

Don't be a stupid hypocrite.

Posted = by: Jason at April 20, 2006 = 06:32=20 PM

Incitement is in the eye of the beholder.

Does the South Park Episode where the Virgin Mary shits blood on the = Pope=20 supposed to incite catholics ?

Or the one where they said that child molestation was part of the = catholic=20 church's doctrine, which was gotten from a giant spider?

The Danish cartoons were speech and it should be free.

Do you think CNN should cover the cartoons as a "security concern" = like they=20 did with this woman?

Don't be a stupid hypocrite.

Posted = by: Jason at April 20, 2006 = 06:34=20 PM

Try to keep up, TPD;

If muslims, or anyone else, riots, they are doing physical violence. = That's=20 the line you don't cross without justified repercussions. Sticks and = stones,=20 remember?

No, we shouldn't ignore the motivations of those who incite; I just = don't=20 think they should be prevented from speaking (different from 'doing=20 violence').

Should we publish inciting cartoons just because they do? I think we = should=20 publish whatever we want. Insults don't help, but threats are worse.

Best of luck "deflating and undermining" radical Islam. You see those = violent=20 rioters out there, TPD? Get on out there and deflate and undermine them. = Good=20 luck, and don't forget your windchimes. Sometimes, TPD, you have to = actually=20 push back.

Posted by: slappy at April 20, 2006 06:38 = PM=20

Try to keep up, TPD;

If muslims, or anyone else, riots, they are doing physical violence. = That's=20 the line you don't cross without justified repercussions. Sticks and = stones,=20 remember?

No, we shouldn't ignore the motivations of those who incite; I just = don't=20 think they should be prevented from speaking (different from 'doing=20 violence').

Should we publish inciting cartoons just because they do? I think we = should=20 publish whatever we want. Insults don't help, but threats are worse.

Posted by: slappy at April 20, 2006 06:50 = PM=20

OY!!! Three more years!!!

Posted by: = Mme Flutterbye at April 20, 2006 = 06:54=20 PM

When we have an unelected leader who quashes dissent, we have no room = to talk=20 about anything China does.

Do your part. Steal resident Bush's P before it's too late!

The Missing P = Project
www.geocities.com/themissingPproject

Posted by: The=20 Missing P Project at April 20, 2006 07:24 PM

One of the most insidious lies perpetuated by our government is this = silly=20 business of our freedoms and rights. We are, and always have been, free = to do or=20 say anything the government permits us to do or say. If we step over the = unspoken, invisible boundaries and start telling the unvarnished truth = in=20 public, the pressure begins. Perhaps trouble with the IRS will suddenly = develop.=20 Maybe you'll get the same disquieting visit Doug Thompson no doubt got = right=20 before he wrote that recent article reversing his previously-held = position on=20 9-11.

Posted by: Dan=20 at April 20, 2006 07:25 PM

Take a look at the abuse under this guy:=20 http://falunhr.org/index.php?option=3Dcontent&task=3Dview&id=3D14= 95&Itemid=3D

Posted by: Sukoi=20 at April 20, 2006 07:27 PM

Seems the woman got herself a press pass, but went to protest. She = went there=20 under false pretenses and the newspaper that issued her credential (a = Falun Gong=20 paper) has denied any knowledge of her plans. Security was right to = remove her.=20

Now, if she was a gay male prostitute without press credentials, why = I=20 believe her speech would have been protected. (If she were dropping = presidential=20 talking points anyway).

Posted by: Jess Wundrun at April 20, 2006 = 08:07=20 PM

"Any enemy of free speech is an enemy of ours, and we have long = loathed the=20 totalitarian regime in Beijing."

Does that mean that you also loathe the regimes in Austria, Germany = and=20 Canada, who are imprisoning Ernst Zundel, David Irving and others for = the crime=20 of not believing government pronouncements about the past?

Posted by: Doug at April=20 20, 2006 08:07 PM

time has come to nixon dubya

Posted = by: gunnar at April 20, 2006 08:14 = PM=20

Why is it wrong in Islam to have a picture of Mohammed, but ok to = name your=20 kid Mohammed?

If there are no pictures of Mohammed, how did they know the = caricatures of an=20 Arab guy are THAT Mohammed and not one of the billions of other = Mohammeds that=20 have ever lived?

If someone's primary reaction to insults is to commit violence, they = need to=20 be insulted every moment of every day until they develop a thicker skin = or until=20 their violence pisses off the wrong people and they get wiped off the = face of=20 the earth. The world is too small a place to tolerate people who are = touchier=20 than a pit full of stirred up rattlesnakes.

Posted=20 by: Mohammed at April 20, = 2006 08:22=20 PM

The Danish cartoons were free speech, but reckless free speech. We = don't have=20 to approve of it just because it's "free speech." It was stupid. We can=20 criticize it as being reckless and an abuse of free speech without being = hypocrites. Just like we can criticize the man who screams fire in the = crowded=20 theater for abusing his "free speech" rights.

The hypocrites are the conservatives who complained about the Christ = in urine=20 display in Brooklyn but who now think the Danish cartoons are = okay.

Posted by: Pugsly at=20 April 20, 2006 08:30 PM

"If someone's primary reaction to insults is to commit violence, they = need to=20 be insulted every moment of every day until they develop a thicker skin = or until=20 their violence pisses off the wrong people and they get wiped off the = face of=20 the earth. The world is too small a place to tolerate people who are = touchier=20 than a pit full of stirred up rattlesnakes."

Posted by Mohammed at April 20, 2006 08:22 PM

well done Mo!

Posted by: SBVFT contributor - Attytood =3D = Planet=20 Chomsky at April 20, 2006 09:04 PM

If youse would all just listen to me, life would go on much more=20 smoother.

Posted by: Archibald Bunker at April 20, = 2006 10:18=20 PM

At a certain point, critics of China need to ask themselves whether = it is a=20 knee-jerk reaction (mantra: Tiananmen, Taiwan, Tibet) to a bogeyman or = if their=20 contempt is grounded in reality. There are a lot of problems in China,=20 corruption, abuses by the authorities, and of course political = crackdown, but it=20 isn=92t much worse than say, Brazil. You need to visit China and Tibet = to see for=20 yourself that it is a normal country, and Tibet isn=92t undergoing a = genocide like=20 it is alleged. Reality is far more complex. Even if you are fixated on = the idea=20 of a monolithic =93Evil China=94, you need to look more carefully at the = those who=20 profess to =93counter=94 China, it doesn=92t mean they are automatically = =93Good=94. Take=20 a look at how the CIA and government-sponsored American =93NGOs=94 eg. = National=20 Endowment for Democracy (which only cares about democracy in countries = that do=20 not have an American puppet government) support groups like FalunGong, = Tibetan=20 exiles, Taiwanese independence supporters, etc. It is also a political = gambit.=20 Does it not even bother you as media pundits that FalunGong has its own = media=20 empire not unlike the Rev. Moon=92s Unification Church? Have you even = read up on=20 FalunGong beyond their own websites (you can ignore the Chinese = government=20 sites), eg. RickRoss=92s compilation of the cult=92s coverage in the = American press,=20 to see what they are about? Where does all that money come from, to = support a=20 satellite TV, numerous newspapers, thousands of websites, books and = publications=20 and a heavy presence in every Chinatown? It isn=92t that simple - just = comparing=20 the number of pro and against FLG websites gives an idea of their = strength and=20 presence. A lot of =93news=94 sites, eg. Epoch Times, are actualy fronts = for=20 FalunGong, they are equally savvy players in information dissemination. = This is=20 how Americans think, unfortunately, always =93Good=94 vs. =93Bad=94, = without considering=20 the shades of grey.

Posted by: Reason at April 20, 2006 11:00 = PM=20

At a certain point, critics of China need to ask themselves whether = it is a=20 knee-jerk reaction (mantra: Tiananmen, Taiwan, Tibet) to a bogeyman or = if their=20 contempt is grounded in reality. There are a lot of problems in China,=20 corruption, abuses by the authorities, and of course political = crackdown, but it=20 isn=92t much worse than say, Brazil. I have even seen a lot of = "liberals"=20 supporting Japan's neo-fascist stance over WWII simply because their = target is=20 China. You need to visit China and Tibet to see for yourself that it is = a normal=20 country, and Tibet isn=92t undergoing a genocide like it is alleged. = Reality is=20 far more complex. Even if you are fixated on the idea of a monolithic = =93Evil=20 China=94, you need to look more carefully at the those who profess to = =93counter=94=20 China, it doesn=92t mean they are automatically =93Good=94. Take a look = at how the CIA=20 and government-sponsored American =93NGOs=94 eg. National Endowment for = Democracy=20 (which only cares about democracy in countries that do not have an = American=20 puppet government) support groups like FalunGong, Tibetan exiles, = Taiwanese=20 independence supporters, etc. It is also a political gambit. Does it not = even=20 bother you as media pundits that FalunGong has its own media empire not = unlike=20 the Rev. Moon=92s Unification Church? Have you even read up on FalunGong = beyond=20 their own websites (you can ignore the Chinese government sites), eg. = RickRoss=92s=20 compilation of the cult=92s coverage in the American press, to see what = they are=20 about? Where does all that money come from, to support a satellite TV, = numerous=20 newspapers, thousands of websites, books and publications and a heavy = presence=20 in every Chinatown? It isn=92t that simple - just comparing the number = of pro and=20 against FLG websites gives an idea of their strength and presence. A lot = of=20 =93news=94 sites, eg. Epoch Times, are actualy fronts for FalunGong, = they are=20 equally savvy players in information dissemination. This is how = Americans think,=20 unfortunately, always =93Good=94 vs. =93Bad=94, without considering the = shades of=20 grey.

Posted by: Reason at April 20, 2006 11:05 = PM=20

At a certain point, critics of China need to ask themselves whether = it is a=20 knee-jerk reaction (mantra: Tiananmen, Taiwan, Tibet) to a bogeyman or = if their=20 contempt is grounded in reality. There are a lot of problems in China,=20 corruption, abuses by the authorities, and of course political = crackdown, but it=20 isn=92t much worse than say, Brazil. I have even seen a lot of = "liberals"=20 supporting Japan's neo-fascist stance over WWII simply because their = target is=20 China. You need to visit China and Tibet to see for yourself that it is = a normal=20 country, and Tibet isn=92t undergoing a genocide like it is alleged. = Reality is=20 far more complex. Even if you are fixated on the idea of a monolithic = =93Evil=20 China=94, you need to look more carefully at those who profess to = =93counter=94 China,=20 it doesn=92t mean they are automatically =93Good=94. Take a look at how = the CIA and=20 government-sponsored American =93NGOs=94 eg. National Endowment for = Democracy (which=20 only cares about democracy in countries that do not have an American = puppet=20 government) support groups like FalunGong, Tibetan exiles, Taiwanese=20 independence supporters, etc. It is also a political gambit. Does it not = even=20 bother you as media pundits that FalunGong has its own media empire not = unlike=20 the Rev. Moon=92s Unification Church? Have you even read up on FalunGong = beyond=20 their own websites (you can ignore the Chinese government sites), eg. = RickRoss=92s=20 compilation of the cult=92s coverage in the American press, to see what = they are=20 about? Where does all that money come from, to support a satellite TV, = numerous=20 newspapers, thousands of websites, books and publications and a heavy = presence=20 in every Chinatown? It isn=92t that simple - just comparing the number = of pro and=20 against FLG websites gives an idea of their strength and presence. A lot = of=20 =93news=94 sites, eg. Epoch Times, are actualy fronts for FalunGong, = they are=20 equally savvy players in information dissemination. This is how = Americans think,=20 unfortunately, always =93Good=94 vs. =93Bad=94, without considering the = shades of=20 grey.

Posted by: Reason at April 20, 2006 11:05 = PM=20

Apologies for the multiple entries...the page was not loading. = :(

Posted by: Reason at=20 April 20, 2006 11:29 PM

db and arn think the good ol' 'clinton did it too' argument carries = water.=20 that's great logic there, boys -- you get a twofer for combining the = 'blame=20 clinton' technique and the 'third grader excuse' for deflecting blame = despite=20 committing a wrongful act.

great work!

how about you just admit that you guys still have fantasies about = clinton,=20 alright? i mean, if it weren't for him you'd be nowhere, and you'd have = no way=20 to defend your glorious leader's numerous failures.

Posted by: Progressaurus=20 Rex at April 21, 2006 01:43 AM

DB cooper,

For the record, the phone numbers Malkin published on her blog were = in a SAW=20 press release that was sent to members of the press only. It was not, = contrary=20 to Malkin's claim, available on the online press release posted on SAW's = website, nor was it "wiped from the cached version" which doesn't make = any=20 sense. In her blog entries she gives three different links in an attempt = to show=20 the information was available but none of the websites or the cached = versions=20 have the phone numbers, and she ends up relying on a questionable screen = shot to=20 prove her claim.

Even if the information was readily available, Michell Malkin had = ample and=20 unhibited opportunity to exercise her first amendment rights by voicing = her=20 opposition to SAW's campaign in her writing. Posting the personal = private phone=20 numbers of individual demonstrators was a low blow and certainly not = necessary=20 to make her point. She knew exactly what she was doing.

Posted by: BrahmsRocker at April 21, 2006 = 02:25=20 AM

So, the bush cultists seem to believe that if Clinton did it it = becomes=20 legal. Bonnie and Clyde were bank robbers. Is bank robbery now legal? =
Or is=20 it a tit for tat type thing?
I've tried to get an explanation of = this=20 theory, but every frightwinger I know won't discuss politics with me any = more.
Clinton did it is not a legal argument.
I've asked plenty of = bedwetters why they hate Clinton and love Bush. Not a single one had an=20 answer.

Posted by: merlallen at April 21, 2006 = 03:07=20 AM

Bookmark = Attytood=20