But surely, we agree that freedom of speech and freedom of association are rights reserved ONLY for non-racists, correct? Marcus Garvey was a politically incorrect, race-baiting segregationist who openly admired fascism; he was a *hate-criminal*, and a man like that should have been allowed neither freedom of speech nor freedom of association!
Or should he?
I dunno. I can overlook his past. His work on Wolfblood & Broadchurch is top notch.
But surely, we agree that freedom of speech and freedom of association are rights reserved ONLY for non-terrorists, correct? Osama bin Laden was a politically incorrect, race-baiting segregationist who openly admired fascism; he was a *hate-criminal*, and a man like that should have been allowed neither freedom of speech nor freedom of association!
Or should he?
So I take it you're siding with Hoover on this one, meme?
And real quickly, to address what I assume your implications are: yes, I do believe that terrorists and pedophiles, as well as racists, deserve to have their freedom of speech and freedom of association respected.
When you're *raping children* or *blowing up World Trade Centers*, then yes, you've crossed the line and The Man has every right to crack down on you. But as long you're just thinking or talking or writing about things which any sensible progressive person would find reprehensible (like Garvey and the flagrantly racist Black Nationalists he inspired), then neither the state, nor the FBI, nor even I myself, have any right to FORCE you to shut up. I might disagree with you, I might think you're evil, but the proper response to speech is dialogue and rational debate, not violent suppression and book burning.
Of course, if you really and honestly disagree with me on this matter, I guess I'm shit of luck, since I can't insist on censoring you! As far as memes go, freedom of speech is at real serious competitive disadvantage against the suppression of speech meme, which I think may be a big factor in why fewer and fewer people seem to give a shit about the Hooverian approach to public discourse.
SPK - good question. I'd say it depends upon the MANNER of their association. If pedophiles are doing anything untowards - like taking saucy pictures or trying to cop a feel - then obviously we'd have good reason to respond violently. But if the pedophile is not doing anything untowards - if he is merely in the presence of children - then I guess there's really nothing much, punitively, we can do. That's not to say I'd want my kids around a known pedophile, or that parents have no right to take matters into their own hands. Freedom of association means that parents are free to keep their kids away from pedos, if that is what they want (and they should). However, ethically speaking, that's as far as they can go - parents should not, for example, be allowed to gather in mobs and lynch suspected pedophiles. They should be allowed to yell and scream and drag their kids away from the buggers.
Now, as far as *convicted sex offending* pedophiles are concerned, yes, I suppose I agree with the dominant legal rationale of preventing them from having any contact with children whatsoever. But these are special cases. They do not lose their right to free association because they have THOUGHTS which we find abhorrent. They lose their right to free association because they have ACTED VIOLENTLY and VICTIMIZED another human being. That's a big difference, and it ties back in with the whole Osama Bin Laden thing - I don't think Bin Laden should have been shot to death because he was anti-American. He should have been shot to death because he actively orchestrated terrorist attacks.
There's a huge difference between thoughts, and actions. Not all thoughts are created equal, but they should never be criminalized, and any society which condones the criminalization of thoughts - no matter how well intentioned - is inherently authoritarian and oppressive.
Well, actually, in Hoover's case, he should have had his rights violated for being a cross-dresser, because MAN THOSE FREAKS HUH. But everything else the FBI did under his watch was bullshit.
You should stick to cataloging children's cartoons.
Honestly, EvilHomer, you go back and forth between being ultra liberal and straight up teabagger so often that I assume you're neither, and have just grown accustomed to adopting the opposite thought to what you present.
I've become an automatic troll-pong to your troll-ping and the delay time is getting too short for even me to find fun anymore.
I guess I would consider myself both, or neither, depending on the definition being used and the context in which the descriptor is found!
At any rate, I don't think that being in favor of free speech and being against Hoover's FBI shenanigans are fringe positions restricted to either ultra-liberals or tea baggers.
Man I'd be bitter too if I thought the FBI would arrest me if they ever found out the kinda pornography I jerk off to
But surely, we agree that freedom of speech and freedom of association are rights reserved ONLY for non-pedophiles, correct? Father Dennis Lyons was a politically incorrect, race-baiting segregationist who openly admired fascism; he was a *hate-criminal*, and a man like that should have been allowed neither freedom of speech nor freedom of association!
Or should he?
Oh my god, I'm sorry, I know this isn't really the venue, but I just posted that inflated, age-regressed, gender-swapped Kaa picture I mentioned the other day. You know, when I was brainstorming, trying to think of something that'd get me page views? In a mere half hour, I've got more views on Kaa than I've got on any of my other pieces.
Well, I thought it was funny...
| Register or login To Post a Comment|