Left Wing Groups Call For Limitations On Speech

[woolfe9999]

Just to help out Wolfie, here's a little selection from the NHMC's own web site about "hate speech".
http://www.nhmc.org/node/38

Please note that "hate radio" is specifically identified as Limbaugh, Hannity, Dobbs, Boortz, Beck and Savage, along with a blatant lie that right wing radio claims 91% of radio airwaves. And you people have the fucking nerve to tell us that "studying" this "hate speech" is no indication of a desire and intention to eliminate it? Nobody should be either that blatantly dishonest or that stupid.

Note also that the National Council of La Raza (The Race) is listed as "the nation's leading Hispanic advocacy group." Evidently advocating "for the race everything, outside the race nothing" is not considered hate speech. Go figure.

Nothing in that piece says anything about censorship. You just think that what's they desire. It is, however, extremely misleading to claim that "Left Wing Groups Call For Limitations On Speech," when they specifically have said they are NOT doing so, because you think that's what they really want to do. You're also confusing the criticism of speech, which is free speech in and of itself, with the advocacy of censorship. That's a common form of "confusion" by the way. I see it all the time on discussion boards.

For purposes of rational discussion, you can only work with what people say and do (with what they do being the most important thing). Arguing from what you infer, and translating that into concrete positions which people have not taken, is not an honest form of discussion. If you want to lead into a discussion saying that these people are saying such and such, and that you think this is a stepping stone to censorship, that's a position for legitimate debate. Straw manning is not.

- wolf

 

[shira]

All the left can do in defense of this is rationalize that they're more level-headed, or can think for themselves. Don't be foolish. You're no different than us, except that you've lost the war in the talk radio arena. Rather than admit defeat in a fair fight, the left opts to silence the opposition.

Well, I have no idea just how different those on the right are, nor do I have a clue on what basis you've determined the degree of differentness of the right. And I plead the same ignorance about the differentness of the left. Thus, it's impossible for me to decide whether the left is or is not more different THAN the right is different.

But perhaps what you REALLY intended to compare was the level-headedness of the left and right, not how different they each are. That intent would have been much clearer if you'd written: You're no different FROM us.

 

[Bowfinger]

You really see no connection between liberals demanding that the FCC monitor "hate speech" and the liberals demanding that the FCC use the Fairness Doctrine and other things like "community content" to eliminate that "hate speech"? Must be lots of totally unforeseeable surprises in your world, Wolf.

What a phony argument. The fact remains that the OP is a lie. The "left wing groups" cited are simply NOT calling for "limitations on speech," contrary to the OP's claims. They are calling for research and data collection. Unfortunately, the honest, accurate story isn't nearly as effective at whipping the nutters into a rage so the propaganda machine spices it up -- i.e., it lies.

The result is exactly as intended. The nutters eagerly swallow the bait without question ... again, get all frothed up ... again, and run around screeching at each other about the sky falling ... again, all because they're too damned lazy and gullible to find out they've been played ... again. It would be hilarious were it not destroying the very foundation of American democracy, an informed and reasoning electorate.

That is exactly why many of us -- not just liberals -- support restoring the Fairness Doctrine. While the blowhards have the right to spread their lies, the public's best interests demands that those lies be challenged. That's what the Fairness Doctrine is all about, ensuring that both sides of the story are heard. It didn't even require equal time, just that opposing viewpoints be presented. People can then make up their own minds what they want to believe.

Seems perfectly reasonable, that people be encouraged to think for themselves, but propagandists need tight control of their message to be effective. They last thing they want is their puppets actually thinking.

Finally, I have to laugh that the people who cry about the "liberal media" are the same ones who most oppose the Fairness Doctrine. If they truly believed in their position, it seems they'd welcome the chance to counter the "liberal" news with their truth. They don't see the incongruity, however, because they're programmed not to. The MSM isn't truly liberal any more than the wing-nut blowhards are truly conservative. They're both managed by the same corporatist interests, manipulating the masses for their own self-interest. They are extremely good at it.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ] And you people have the fucking nerve to tell us that "studying" this "hate speech" is no indication of a desire and intention to eliminate it?

No, we're telling you that regardless of what these groups may believe or want internally, their filing with the FCC -- which is the subject of the OP -- simply, clearly, unarguably does NOT call for limitations on speech, contrary to the claim in the OP. The OP is a lie, it's just that simple.

Nobody should be either that blatantly dishonest or that stupid.

Indeed.

 

[dmcowen674]

"For these reasons, as the Commission deliberates how the public interest will be served in the digital age, it should consider the extent of hate speech in media, and its effects."


http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/100833-groups-want-fcc-to-police-hate-speech

Awesome, the sooner Rush, Hannity, Levin and the rest of the America haters are booted off our airwaves the better.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Awesome, the sooner Rush, Hannity, Levin and the rest of the America haters are booted off our airwaves the better.

If they're booting the America haters, you'd be among the first to go.

 

[piasabird]

Only communists, Socialists, facists, and dictators try to control the media. People who believe in freedom would never think of that. Without freedom of speech America is just another 3rd world country with a dictator in charge.

 

[Danube]

No, we're telling you that regardless of what these groups may believe or want internally, their filing with the FCC -- which is the subject of the OP -- simply, clearly, unarguably does NOT call for limitations on speech, contrary to the claim in the OP. The OP is a lie, it's just that simple.



Indeed.

If you look at their statement they link up three things A) several random acts of violence B) talk radio/TV (and we KNOW they mean conservatives) and C) white people.

Dick Morris and Clinton used the strategy after Kasnas City. These complaining groups don't like the AZ law and consider it "anti-Latino" despite fact it mirrors common sense national law. They say not enough correct information about the law is coming from media - which they complain is too white. These people are running the same tired "divide and conquer" racialist defamation tactics and they absolutely want to to stifle conservative media.

How Clinton exploited Oklahoma City for political gain



"Clinton was in deep political trouble in April 1995. Six months earlier, voters had resoundingly rejected Democrats in the 1994 mid-term elections, giving the GOP control of both House and Senate. Polls showed the public viewed Clinton as weak, incompetent and ineffective. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his GOP forces seized the initiative on virtually every significant issue, while Clinton appeared to be politically dead. The worst moment may have come on April 18, the day before the bombing, when Clinton plaintively told reporters, "The president is still relevant here."

And then came the explosion at the Murrah Federal Building. In addition to seeing a criminal act and human loss, Clinton and Morris saw opportunity. If the White House could tie Gingrich, congressional Republicans and conservative voices like Rush Limbaugh to the attack, then Clinton might gain the edge in the fight against the GOP.

Morris began polling about Oklahoma City almost immediately after the bombing. On April 23, four days after the attack, Clinton appeared to point the finger straight at his political opponents during a speech in Minneapolis. "We hear so many loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other," he said. "They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable."

At a White House meeting four days later, on April 27, Morris presented Clinton with a comeback strategy based on his polling. Morris prepared an extensive agenda for the session, a copy of which he would include in the paperback version of his 1999 memoir, Behind the Oval Office. This is how the April 27 agenda began:

AFTERMATH OF OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING
A. Temporary gain: boost in ratings -- here today, gone tomorrow
B. More permanent gain: Improvements in character/personality attributes -- remedies weakness, incompetence, ineffectiveness found in recent poll
C. Permanent possible gain: sets up Extremist Issue vs. Republicans

Later, under the heading "How to use extremism as issue against Republicans," Morris told Clinton that "direct accusations" of extremism wouldn't work because the Republicans were not, in fact, extremists. Rather, Morris recommended what he called the "ricochet theory." Clinton would "stimulate national concern over extremism and terror," and then, "when issue is at top of national agenda, suspicion naturally gravitates to Republicans." As that happened, Morris recommended, Clinton would use his executive authority to impose "intrusive" measures against so-called extremist groups. Clinton would explain that such intrusive measures were necessary to prevent future violence, knowing that his actions would, Morris wrote, "provoke outrage by extremist groups who will write their local Republican congressmen." Then, if members of Congress complained, that would "link right-wing of the party to extremist groups." The net effect, Morris concluded, would be "self-inflicted linkage between [GOP] and extremists"


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...or-political-gain-91267829.html#ixzz0pkcCsY6Z
​

 

[Bowfinger]

[ Long, pointless diversion deleted ]

The OP is a lie, it's just that simple.

 

[Budmantom]

Awesome, the sooner Rush, Hannity, Levin and the rest of the America haters are booted off our airwaves the better.

More leftist propaganda instead of debating anyone lets call it "hate speech", keep in mind the people you mentioned can't do a thing to you they are entertainers, it's odd that you don't mention anyone that's bringing this country to her knees.

The people that hate this country(D) are the ones running it to the ground, especially the one that apologizing for the greatness of America.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

American Fast Food Joints Call For Hamburgers To Be Served
Pacific Ocean Calls For Lots Of Water
Peanut Butter And Jelly Sandwiches Call For Peanut Butter And Jelly

 

[FuzzyBee]

Right - they don't "call for limitations", directly, at least. They do it very passive-aggressively. Why would they point out all of this hate speech if they didn't want anything done about it?

The odd thing is that many of the examples they list don't have anything to do with radio or TV media, which is what they're "not" trying to get limited.

What, exactly is the point of their petition? To have the government "collect data" on opposing viewpoints just to have the data? Unused data is worthless.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just to help out Wolfie, here's a little selection from the NHMC's own web site about "hate speech".
http://www.nhmc.org/node/38

Please note that "hate radio" is specifically identified as Limbaugh, Hannity, Dobbs, Boortz, Beck and Savage, along with a blatant lie that right wing radio claims 91% of radio airwaves. And you people have the fucking nerve to tell us that "studying" this "hate speech" is no indication of a desire and intention to eliminate it? Nobody should be either that blatantly dishonest or that stupid.

Note also that the National Council of La Raza (The Race) is listed as "the nation's leading Hispanic advocacy group." Evidently advocating "for the race everything, outside the race nothing" is not considered hate speech. Go figure.

"What does the term “La Raza” mean?
The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people,” or, according to some scholars, “the Hispanic people of the New World.” The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. Some people have mistranslated “La Raza” to mean “The Race,” implying that it is a term meant to exclude others. In fact, the full term coined by Vasconcelos, “La Raza Cósmica,” meaning the “cosmic people,” was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny."

At least according to La Raza

 

[nonlnear]

"What does the term “La Raza” mean?

...

This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny."

At least according to La Raza

Just like how the NAACP is looking out for all colored people?

 

[ayabe]

what are the implications?

black helicopters, gun and fishing ban, forced abortion of white babies, surrendering our sovereignty to the UN, surrendering to terrorist killers...

Might have left a few out but you get the gist.

 

[dank69]

what are the implications?

black helicopters, gun and fishing ban, forced abortion of white babies, surrendering our sovereignty to the UN, surrendering to terrorist killers...

Might have left a few out but you get the gist.

black female SC judges...

 

[werepossum]

"What does the term “La Raza” mean?
The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people,” or, according to some scholars, “the Hispanic people of the New World.” The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. Some people have mistranslated “La Raza” to mean “The Race,” implying that it is a term meant to exclude others. In fact, the full term coined by Vasconcelos, “La Raza Cósmica,” meaning the “cosmic people,” was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny."

At least according to La Raza

"Raza" means "race" in any Spanish to English dictionary; "La Raza" is "The Race". "People" translates to the Spanish "pueblo" (or occasionally the feminine "personas".) “La Raza Cosmica” is merely a play on “La Raza Humana”, "The Human Race". (By way of comparison, "race" and "people" are "razza" and "popolo" in Italian, "race" and "peuple" in French, the other Romance languages.) This is easily and definitively proven by anyone with a few minutes, even without the slightest background in etymology. La Raza has merely tried to hide its blatantly racist policies with some fuzzy pseudo-etymology knowing that progressives will seize on any reason, no matter how flimsy, to excuse racism if it supports the cause.

This is no different from Muslims insisting that "seven" and "nine" actually mean "seventeen" and "nineteen" when applied to the Prophet's youngest wife's age, purely transparent self-serving sophistry.

 

[Moonbeam]

"Raza" means "race" in any Spanish to English dictionary; "La Raza" is "The Race". "People" translates to the Spanish "pueblo" (or occasionally the feminine "personas".) “La Raza Cosmica” is merely a play on “La Raza Humana”, "The Human Race". (By way of comparison, "race" and "people" are "razza" and "popolo" in Italian, "race" and "peuple" in French, the other Romance languages.) This is easily and definitively proven by anyone with a few minutes, even without the slightest background in etymology. La Raza has merely tried to hide its blatantly racist policies with some fuzzy pseudo-etymology knowing that progressives will seize on any reason, no matter how flimsy, to excuse racism if it supports the cause.

This is no different from Muslims insisting that "seven" and "nine" actually mean "seventeen" and "nineteen" when applied to the Prophet's youngest wife's age, purely transparent self-serving sophistry.

You, however, would know nothing of self-serving sophistry especially if it supports the cause. By the way, there is only one human race even though we have many Neanderthal genes.

 

[umbrella39]

More leftist propaganda instead of debating anyone lets call it "hate speech", keep in mind the people you mentioned can't do a thing to you they are entertainers, it's odd that you don't mention anyone that's bringing this country to her knees.

The people that hate this country(D) are the ones running it to the ground, especially the one that apologizing for the greatness of America.

Go stick a sock on your other hand....

 

[werepossum]

You, however, would know nothing of self-serving sophistry especially if it supports the cause. By the way, there is only one human race even though we have many Neanderthal genes.

Okay, in how many threads have I either defended Obama (who is mostly diametrically opposed and at best occasionally anemically supportive to any causes I have) or refused to blame him for the latest crisis? I don't do sophistry; I seldom even do nuance. I do agree that there is only one human race. Ichthyologists use the concept of race but recognize that it is a purely human construct useful only for purposes of classification, whereas anthropologists and sociologists typically use the concept of race as though it has some greater meaning. But please notice that in this instance, as with almost any modern issue, it's the left treating race as if it has some precise and scientific meaning rather than the truth, that race is an arbitrary and artificial construct, a grouping of necessarily vague characteristics, in order to excuse some people from compliance with the law. And in this case the left has stretched the concept of race itself far beyond its breaking point for purely political benefit, so that race is now defined as nothing more than a common language group (Spanish or Portuguese) and VERY general area (i.e. the New World below the United States.) In fact the left is stretching race even further, so that both ethnic Mayans or Amerindians in North American Mexico speaking no Old World languages whatsoever and ethnically pure European Argentinians speaking only Spanish are both grouped as Hispanic or Latino. And then, having stretched the very concept of race beyond all recognition, the left has the gall to denounce the right and center as racist if they don't allot special privileges based on this absurd travesty of race. Just goes to show that the left is without any sense of shame.

 

[nonlnear]

But please notice that in this instance, as with almost any modern issue, it's the left treating race as if it has some precise and scientific meaning rather than the truth, that race is an arbitrary and artificial construct, a grouping of necessarily vague characteristics, in order to excuse some people from compliance with the law.

You are being too kind here. Never accuse them of consistency! They use race as if it has some precise and scientific meaning whenever they feel like it - until they are asked what they mean in precise and scientific terms. Then they retort that everybody knows it is an artificial construct that we need to "transcend", and that anyone who tries to pin it down (even if that effort is in response to the left injecting the concept into the discussion in the first place) is somehow hateful and duplicitous.

Then again there's a good 95% of GOP bigwigs I wouldn't accuse of consistency either, rhetorical, ideological, or otherwise - except in their penchant for pocket stuffing. (Gotta throw that in so that nobody misinterprets my post as being staunchly on the "right" in the ridiculously simplified American political idiom.)

 

[woolfe9999]

You are being too kind here. Never accuse them of consistency! They use race as if it has some precise and scientific meaning whenever they feel like it - until they are asked what they mean in precise and scientific terms. Then they retort that everybody knows it is an artificial construct that we need to "transcend", and that anyone who tries to pin it down (even if that effort is in response to the left injecting the concept into the discussion in the first place) is somehow hateful and duplicitous.

While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, can you give an example of where liberals use "race as if it has some precise and scientific meaning." I never hear anything from liberals about "race" except that it's an artificial construct. I don't doubt there is some example of the term being employed in such a way as to suggest that race is scientifically definable, but I don't recall every hearing anything of that nature, not from liberals. Are you referring to, say, defining who isn't and isn't "black" for purposes of something like affirmative action, for example?

- wolf

 

[nonlnear]

While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, can you give an example of where liberals use "race as if it has some precise and scientific meaning."

Good point. Perhaps I should have said they invoke it with the authority and conviction that one would typically ascribe to a term that has been given a precise and scientific meaning when it is convenient, but refuse to substantiate the force of said convictions when pressed on the point.

"Definitions" are part of the WASP infrastructure of oppressive constructs - in this case modernism is the most obvious culprit. In hindsight I think I fell into the trap of failing to follow the narrative being laid out by their rhetorical form. By invoking moral authority in racially charged topics but transcending the horrifically oppressive practice of defining the terminology they are in fact demonstrating the inherent superiority of the new form of thought.

The times when I think it is invoked with the most precise intent (correct or not) is when addressing socioeconomic issues like wage discrimination or asymmetric sentencing statistics. Granted in this setting "race" (whether well defined or not) is rarely the best term to use, and is often used more out of convention than precise intent.

I never hear anything from liberals about "race" except that it's an artificial construct. I don't doubt there is some example of the term being employed in such a way as to suggest that race is scientifically definable, but I don't recall every hearing anything of that nature, not from liberals.

I didn't mean to give the impression that they assert that it is scientifically definable, only that they sometimes want people to think of it as if it is - as long as the precise authority of this implicit claim remains "mysterious". Allow me to quote myself to highlight what I would have emphasized with intonation:

They use race as if it has some precise and scientific meaning whenever they feel like it - until they are asked what they mean in precise and scientific terms.

"As if" was quite deliberate, with emphasis on the implicit sleight of hand. I definitely would not have said they use the term with the explicit claim that it is scientifically definable, as that would make it impossible to deny the claim later.

Are you referring to, say, defining who isn't and isn't "black" for purposes of something like affirmative action, for example?

I am under the impression that that has fallen out of vogue on all sides of the political debate. I see it used more often in a nebulous way to refer to groups and "identities" than to individuals. This lets the practitioners of the various hocus-pocus-ologies to write their tripe without having to bother offending actual people. An academic paper about social structures isn't going to ruffle any feathers in the 'hood if it sticks to abstractions instead of individuals. After all, nobody outside the ivory tower reads the actual papers or studies anyways.

 

[woolfe9999]

Good point. Perhaps I should have said they invoke it with the authority and conviction that one would typically ascribe to a term that has been given a precise and scientific meaning when it is convenient, but refuse to substantiate the force of said convictions when pressed on the point.

"Definitions" are part of the WASP infrastructure of oppressive constructs - in this case modernism is the most obvious culprit. In hindsight I think I fell into the trap of failing to follow the narrative being laid out by their rhetorical form. By invoking moral authority in racially charged topics but transcending the horrifically oppressive practice of defining the terminology they are in fact demonstrating the inherent superiority of the new form of thought.

The times when I think it is invoked with the most precise intent (correct or not) is when addressing socioeconomic issues like wage discrimination or asymmetric sentencing statistics. Granted in this setting "race" (whether well defined or not) is rarely the best term to use, and is often used more out of convention than precise intent.
I didn't mean to give the impression that they assert that it is scientifically definable, only that they sometimes want people to think of it as if it is - as long as the precise authority of this implicit claim remains "mysterious". Allow me to quote myself to highlight what I would have emphasized with intonation:"As if" was quite deliberate, with emphasis on the implicit sleight of hand. I definitely would not have said they use the term with the explicit claim that it is scientifically definable, as that would make it impossible to deny the claim later.

I am under the impression that that has fallen out of vogue on all sides of the political debate. I see it used more often in a nebulous way to refer to groups and "identities" than to individuals. This lets the practitioners of the various hocus-pocus-ologies to write their tripe without having to bother offending actual people. An academic paper about social structures isn't going to ruffle any feathers in the 'hood if it sticks to abstractions instead of individuals. After all, nobody outside the ivory tower reads the actual papers or studies anyways.

I fully understand what you mean, including your emphasis on "as if." My experience, however, is that liberals tend to not use the the word "race" at all, unless, of course, they are accusing someone of being a RACist, or claiming that someone is discriminating based on RACE. In that context, implicitly they are describing what they perceive as the alleged racist/discriminator's view of "race" rather than their own. I do hear liberals often using the term "ethnic" or "ethnicity" - a much broader term than race - and also the onmipresent "culture." So I don't really hear liberals using the term AS IF it was scientifically precise, because I never hear them using it at all unless it is some sort of accusation. In modern liberalism, the term "race," with its biological underpinning, seems to be totally un-PC. So while I don't always agree with liberals on issues of race/ethnicity/culture, I don't necessarily perceive the inconsistency that you and werepossum perceive. But that's been my personal experience.

- wolf

 

[Perknose]

I don't do sophistry; I seldom even do nuance.

The entire rest of your post is a passionate argument for nuance, albeit unconsciously laden by you with the kind of crude and unhelpful cartoon reductionism -- THE LEFT -- that lacks any depth or nuance at all.

In case you lack the nuanced logic skills to follow what I'm saying, the diversity of people and views you crudely encompass under THE LEFT matches or exceeds the diversity of peoples you lambaste THE LEFT for putting under the single rubric of Hispanic.

How's that for unexamined irony on your part? Notice, I could have called it hypocrisy, but here I'm being polite and practicing a bit of . . . nuance.

You should try it more often yourself. Sophistry is denotationally pejorative. Nuance is most decidedly not.

Appreciation of nuance is, in fact, what separates the adults from the precocious but shallow 12 year olds. If you can't see or make fine distinctions, then you are doomed to a simplistic and crude cartoon view of the world.

If you can only see and make such distinctions when you are critiquing others, but can't or won't see them in your own utterances, word usage, and views, then you are also in a stage of sadly arrested intellectual development.

Chronological 12 year olds tend to grow out of this. Emotional 12 year olds tend not to.