Obama Administration Advises Limits On Free Speech At UN.

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Obama's ideology is crystal clear when you top making excuses for him

First, CIA lawyers forging "legal opinions" stating what Cheney & Co. told them to put in them is malpractice at best. But I'm not aware of the DoJ pursuing legal claims against these authors. I believe Holder is investigating interrogators who went even beyond the illegal limits proscribed in the torture memos.

And cite one person speaking on behalf of the admin that has recommended subordinating US law wrt free speech to comply with international dictates or UN resolutions. Please, I'd like to read that.

As to your final statement, you've previously stated that you believe Obama hates America and got elected for the specific purpose of destroying the country. How you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously is beyond me.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Obama's ideology is crystal clear when you top making excuses for him

First, CIA lawyers forging "legal opinions" stating what Cheney & Co. told them to put in them is malpractice at best. But I'm not aware of the DoJ pursuing legal claims against these authors. I believe Holder is investigating interrogators who went even beyond the illegal limits proscribed in the torture memos.

And cite one person speaking on behalf of the admin that has recommended subordinating US law wrt free speech to comply with international dictates or UN resolutions. Please, I'd like to read that.

As to your final statement, you've previously stated that you believe Obama hates America and got elected for the specific purpose of destroying the country. How you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously is beyond me.

Well its quite hysterical but Obama was saying that the CIA agents were in the clear since they were just "following orders" and Holder was saying the the agents needed to be investigated even though they were following "legal orders". They don't know if they are coming or going. Holder and Co and know Spain and others are looking to press charges against US gov officials and they don't mind at all.

As for free speech and international standards you are not familiar with Koh (appointed to State Dept - thinks Sharia law has a place in US) I see. Here's some bits:

"Harold Koh, who praises a ?penetrating essay? by Michael Ignatieff that criticizes (in Koh?s summary) ?America?s human-rights narcissism, particularly in its embrace of the First Amendment and its nonembrace of certain rights ? such as economic, social, and cultural rights ? that are widely accepted throughout the rest of the world.?


But don?t worry: Koh proceeds to ?distinguish among four somewhat different faces of American exceptionalism . . . in order of ascending opprobrium.? The first face ? the one that Koh finds least opprobrious, is America?s ?distinctive rights culture,? which gives ?First Amendment protections for speech and religion . . . far greater emphasis and judicial protection in America than in Europe or Asia.? Fortunately, Koh does ?not find this distinctiveness too deeply unsettling to world order? or ?fundamentally inconsistent with universal human values.? So it can be tolerated, at least to some extent and at least under existing ?European Union law?:

The judicial doctrine of ?margin of appreciation,? familiar in European Union law, permits sufficient national variance as to promote tolerance of some measure of this kind of rights distinctiveness.

But, Koh warns in a footnote, ?our exceptional free speech tradition can cause problems abroad, as, for example, may occur when hate speech is disseminated over the Internet.? The Supreme Court ?can moderate these conflicts by applying more consistently the transnationalist approach to judicial interpretation? that Koh advocates (and which I?m exploring in an ongoing series of posts on Bench Memos). "

Keep in mind too that Cass Sunstein has written extensively about being able to regulate internet rumors - even in comment sections of papers and blogs. The bats are in the belfy.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Obama's ideology is crystal clear when you top making excuses for him

First, CIA lawyers forging "legal opinions" stating what Cheney & Co. told them to put in them is malpractice at best. But I'm not aware of the DoJ pursuing legal claims against these authors. I believe Holder is investigating interrogators who went even beyond the illegal limits proscribed in the torture memos.

And cite one person speaking on behalf of the admin that has recommended subordinating US law wrt free speech to comply with international dictates or UN resolutions. Please, I'd like to read that.

As to your final statement, you've previously stated that you believe Obama hates America and got elected for the specific purpose of destroying the country. How you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously is beyond me.

Well its quite hysterical but Obama was saying that the CIA agents were in the clear since they were just "following orders" and Holder was saying the the agents needed to be investigated even though they were following "legal orders". They don't know if they are coming or going. Holder and Co and know Spain and others are looking to press charges against US gov officials and they don't mind at all.

As for free speech and international standards you are not familiar with Koh (appointed to State Dept - thinks Sharia law has a place in US) I see. Here's some bits:

"Harold Koh, who praises a ?penetrating essay? by Michael Ignatieff that criticizes (in Koh?s summary) ?America?s human-rights narcissism, particularly in its embrace of the First Amendment and its nonembrace of certain rights ? such as economic, social, and cultural rights ? that are widely accepted throughout the rest of the world.?


But don?t worry: Koh proceeds to ?distinguish among four somewhat different faces of American exceptionalism . . . in order of ascending opprobrium.? The first face ? the one that Koh finds least opprobrious, is America?s ?distinctive rights culture,? which gives ?First Amendment protections for speech and religion . . . far greater emphasis and judicial protection in America than in Europe or Asia.? Fortunately, Koh does ?not find this distinctiveness too deeply unsettling to world order? or ?fundamentally inconsistent with universal human values.? So it can be tolerated, at least to some extent and at least under existing ?European Union law?:

The judicial doctrine of ?margin of appreciation,? familiar in European Union law, permits sufficient national variance as to promote tolerance of some measure of this kind of rights distinctiveness.

But, Koh warns in a footnote, ?our exceptional free speech tradition can cause problems abroad, as, for example, may occur when hate speech is disseminated over the Internet.? The Supreme Court ?can moderate these conflicts by applying more consistently the transnationalist approach to judicial interpretation? that Koh advocates (and which I?m exploring in an ongoing series of posts on Bench Memos). "

Keep in mind too that Cass Sunstein has written extensively about being able to regulate internet rumors - even in comment sections of papers and blogs. The bats are in the belfy.

I doubt you understand one word in three you quoted above. Further, comments in newspapers and on the internet are ALREADY REGULATED with regard to free speech violations. You cannot defame someone anonymously, nor make death threats anonymously. Such free speech protections never existed. Just recently the FCC passed regs to regulate blogs wrt disclosure of revenue sources. This is no different that how other media are regulated to prevent perpetrators from buying off the press, or product owners from buying favorable reviews.

Just restate again here how you believe that Obama hates america and is intentionally trying to destroy it so everyone reading can get the context and relative value of your opinions.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

If limiting free speech will prevent the OP from posting I'm in, hell with the constitution

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Obama's ideology is crystal clear when you top making excuses for him

First, CIA lawyers forging "legal opinions" stating what Cheney & Co. told them to put in them is malpractice at best. But I'm not aware of the DoJ pursuing legal claims against these authors. I believe Holder is investigating interrogators who went even beyond the illegal limits proscribed in the torture memos.

And cite one person speaking on behalf of the admin that has recommended subordinating US law wrt free speech to comply with international dictates or UN resolutions. Please, I'd like to read that.

As to your final statement, you've previously stated that you believe Obama hates America and got elected for the specific purpose of destroying the country. How you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously is beyond me.

Well its quite hysterical but Obama was saying that the CIA agents were in the clear since they were just "following orders" and Holder was saying the the agents needed to be investigated even though they were following "legal orders". They don't know if they are coming or going. Holder and Co and know Spain and others are looking to press charges against US gov officials and they don't mind at all.

As for free speech and international standards you are not familiar with Koh (appointed to State Dept - thinks Sharia law has a place in US) I see. Here's some bits:

"Harold Koh, who praises a ?penetrating essay? by Michael Ignatieff that criticizes (in Koh?s summary) ?America?s human-rights narcissism, particularly in its embrace of the First Amendment and its nonembrace of certain rights ? such as economic, social, and cultural rights ? that are widely accepted throughout the rest of the world.?


But don?t worry: Koh proceeds to ?distinguish among four somewhat different faces of American exceptionalism . . . in order of ascending opprobrium.? The first face ? the one that Koh finds least opprobrious, is America?s ?distinctive rights culture,? which gives ?First Amendment protections for speech and religion . . . far greater emphasis and judicial protection in America than in Europe or Asia.? Fortunately, Koh does ?not find this distinctiveness too deeply unsettling to world order? or ?fundamentally inconsistent with universal human values.? So it can be tolerated, at least to some extent and at least under existing ?European Union law?:

The judicial doctrine of ?margin of appreciation,? familiar in European Union law, permits sufficient national variance as to promote tolerance of some measure of this kind of rights distinctiveness.

But, Koh warns in a footnote, ?our exceptional free speech tradition can cause problems abroad, as, for example, may occur when hate speech is disseminated over the Internet.? The Supreme Court ?can moderate these conflicts by applying more consistently the transnationalist approach to judicial interpretation? that Koh advocates (and which I?m exploring in an ongoing series of posts on Bench Memos). "

Keep in mind too that Cass Sunstein has written extensively about being able to regulate internet rumors - even in comment sections of papers and blogs. The bats are in the belfy.

I doubt you understand one word in three you quoted above. Further, comments in newspapers and on the internet are ALREADY REGULATED with regard to free speech violations. You cannot defame someone anonymously, nor make death threats anonymously. Such free speech protections never existed. Just recently the FCC passed regs to regulate blogs wrt disclosure of revenue sources. This is no different that how other media are regulated to prevent perpetrators from buying off the press, or product owners from buying favorable reviews.

Just restate again here how you believe that Obama hates america and is intentionally trying to destroy it so everyone reading can get the context and relative value of your opinions.

It's all going over your head Jonks. That's my problem with guys like you - I am so far ahead I look behind. Obama hates America like his buddies Ayers, Wright, Jones et al. Just keep pretending psychotically that Obama isn't a radical headcase. Your future is dimmer than you realize.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
If limiting free speech will prevent the OP from posting I'm in, hell with the constitution

That's the typical liberal mindset and what Obama is like. I rest your case.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
It's all going over your head Jonks. That's my problem with guys like you - I am so far ahead I look behind. Obama hates America like his buddies Ayers, Wright, Jones et al. Just keep pretending psychotically that Obama isn't a radical headcase. Your future is dimmer than you realize.

Being at the front of the short bus does not make you ahead of everyone else.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Sclamoz

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Is anyone really surprised when Obama wipes his ass with the Constitution anymore?

In what way does this violate our constitution?

From the article:

The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that 'the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of 'negative racial and religious stereotyping.'"

See bolded portion above. I seem to recall our SCOTUS disagreeing with that - the Nazi's were allowed to march in Skokie IL etc.

Seems to me the question is "should our government condone actions in the UN (and on the world scene in general) if they conflict with the Constitution?" It might be that there is no absolute answer to that question, and if so under what circumstances should our government support positions in conflict with the constitution?

While I'm not prepared to answer that (big) question now, I do not believe the UN, a sort of world governence body, is any place to abandon our principals as embodied in the constitution. Quite the contrary, seems to be the very place where we should be adhereing to those principals; what better place is there? (Other than within our borders)

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: jman19
Hi butterbean

I been called worse.

I'm another who suspects you're the same person as Butterbean because you continually post the same kinds of malicious, racist, bigoted bullshit in the same malevolent style as he did. This thread is a fine example.

There's not much worse you could be called than Butterbean, except possibly any of the names used by Kalyan Rachakonda, aka zendari and a host of other names under which he was an equally malicious bigot. :thumbsdown:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
It's all going over your head Jonks. That's my problem with guys like you - I am so far ahead I look behind. Obama hates America like his buddies Ayers, Wright, Jones et al. Just keep pretending psychotically that Obama isn't a radical headcase.

You're not ahead, you're a century in the past remembering a country that doesn't exist, and good riddance. On women's rights, on gay rights, on equality, on race relations, you think (and wish) that it's 1855. You're a homophobe, a bigot, an atavist. You look at a man that embodies the very dream and ideals of America and yet you are blind to it. You're not alone because you're so far ahead of the rest of us; you're alone because you're insane and people run away from you screaming.

 

[Amused]

How ironic that the very group of people who make posts demeaning of Christianity and religion in general fully support a resolution that makes speaking out against a another religion punishable by sanctions.

Seriously, folks. This is an outrageous resolution no matter what party you're from.

And this is coming from a socially liberal agnostic/atheist.

This UN resolution and the committee that created it are a danger to religious freedom and freedom of expression. Any argument to the contrary is an argument in favor of religious tyranny. Replace Obama with Bush and Islam with Christianity in this story and the very people demeaning the OP would themselves be up in arms, as would I.

The hypocrisy in this thread is astounding. President Obama pulled a real boner here and it is surprising to me that the people who consider themselves liberal here are not shocked by it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused
How ironic that the very group of people who make posts demeaning of Christianity and religion in general fully support a resolution that makes speaking out against a another religion punishable by sanctions.

Seriously, folks. This is an outrageous resolution no matter what party you're from.

And this is coming from a socially liberal agnostic/atheist.

This UN resolution and the committee that created it are a danger to religious freedom and freedom of expression. Any argument to the contrary is an argument in favor of religious tyranny. Replace Obama with Bush and Islam with Christianity in this story and the very people demeaning the OP would themselves be up in arms, as would I.

The hypocrisy in this thread is astounding. President Obama pulled a real boner here and it is surprising to me that the people who consider themselves liberal here are not shocked by it.

On both sides, the ones up in arms over it usually couldn't give a shit what the UN rules.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
How ironic that the very group of people who make posts demeaning of Christianity and religion in general fully support a resolution that makes speaking out against a another religion punishable by sanctions.

Seriously, folks. This is an outrageous resolution no matter what party you're from.

And this is coming from a socially liberal agnostic/atheist.

This UN resolution and the committee that created it are a danger to religious freedom and freedom of expression. Any argument to the contrary is an argument in favor of religious tyranny. Replace Obama with Bush and Islam with Christianity in this story and the very people demeaning the OP would themselves be up in arms, as would I.

The hypocrisy in this thread is astounding. President Obama pulled a real boner here and it is surprising to me that the people who consider themselves liberal here are not shocked by it.

On both sides, the ones up in arms over it usually couldn't give a shit what the UN rules.

True to a point. They do tend to bitch about the UN but then dismiss it.

Either way, this is a VERY disturbing resolution, but what makes it very sad is that our president signed onto it. Any and every liberal, including myself, should be very disturbed by this.

In my opinion, this is the one subject that should unite all people on this board. Even if the conservatives are pissed only because it says Islam and the liberals are blasé because it's being backed by one of them.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
How ironic that the very group of people who make posts demeaning of Christianity and religion in general fully support a resolution that makes speaking out against a another religion punishable by sanctions.

Seriously, folks. This is an outrageous resolution no matter what party you're from.

And this is coming from a socially liberal agnostic/atheist.

This UN resolution and the committee that created it are a danger to religious freedom and freedom of expression. Any argument to the contrary is an argument in favor of religious tyranny. Replace Obama with Bush and Islam with Christianity in this story and the very people demeaning the OP would themselves be up in arms, as would I.

The hypocrisy in this thread is astounding. President Obama pulled a real boner here and it is surprising to me that the people who consider themselves liberal here are not shocked by it.

On both sides, the ones up in arms over it usually couldn't give a shit what the UN rules.

True to a point. They do tend to bitch about the UN but then dismiss it.

Either way, this is a VERY disturbing resolution, but what makes it very sad is that our president signed onto it. Any and every liberal, including myself, should be very disturbed by this.

In my opinion, this is the one subject that should unite all people on this board. Even if the conservatives are pissed only because it says Islam and the liberals are blasé because it's being backed by one of them.

Well if we the American public were subjected to it then yes I'd be disturbed but we aren't and I'm not.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
How ironic that the very group of people who make posts demeaning of Christianity and religion in general fully support a resolution that makes speaking out against a another religion punishable by sanctions.

Seriously, folks. This is an outrageous resolution no matter what party you're from.

And this is coming from a socially liberal agnostic/atheist.

This UN resolution and the committee that created it are a danger to religious freedom and freedom of expression. Any argument to the contrary is an argument in favor of religious tyranny. Replace Obama with Bush and Islam with Christianity in this story and the very people demeaning the OP would themselves be up in arms, as would I.

The hypocrisy in this thread is astounding. President Obama pulled a real boner here and it is surprising to me that the people who consider themselves liberal here are not shocked by it.

On both sides, the ones up in arms over it usually couldn't give a shit what the UN rules.

True to a point. They do tend to bitch about the UN but then dismiss it.

Either way, this is a VERY disturbing resolution, but what makes it very sad is that our president signed onto it. Any and every liberal, including myself, should be very disturbed by this.

In my opinion, this is the one subject that should unite all people on this board. Even if the conservatives are pissed only because it says Islam and the liberals are blasé because it's being backed by one of them.

Well if we the American public were subjected to it then yes I'd be disturbed but we aren't and I'm not.

Ah, yes, but herein lies the hypocrisy. Did the left not frame their argument against the detaining of terrorists as being unconstitutional? Well now, if we are to treat foreign terrorists with constitutional rights, should we not uphold and promote those rights universally? Or is it only expedient when you oppose the party in power?

And like it our not, if this UN resolution can be used to bring sanctions against a state who's media or government is seen as violating it, can those sanctions not be brought against the US?

No matter how you look at it, it's bad. And it's even worse that our president signed onto it.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Apart from insulting the OP, does anyone have any input on this?

You must feel pretty foolish defending this piece of work.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Amused
Ah, yes, but herein lies the hypocrisy. Did the left not frame their argument against the detaining of terrorists as being unconstitutional?

Yes, when we are the one's doing the detaining. China or Iran can't act against the US constitution in their treatment of prisoners

Well now, if we are to treat foreign terrorists with constitutional rights, should we not uphold and promote those rights universally? Or is it only expedient when you oppose the party in power?

You want to apply the US Constitution universally to how other govts treat their own people? I don't think you mean this.

And like it our not, if this UN resolution can be used to bring sanctions against a state who's media or government is seen as violating it, can those sanctions not be brought against the US?

no, since it's a nonbinding resolution.

No matter how you look at it, it's bad. And it's even worse that our president signed onto it.

We were co-sponsors, and as such had input into the drafting. We removed some language that we found problematic, such as "religious defamation." The resolution also stresses the importance of protecting free expression and speech.

You have to engage at some point. I guarantee that when member states supress or punish free speech in their countries the US delegation will to call them on it, but short of that we aren't going to start a war over it. We can't fix the whole world at once. We have an opportunity now while the US is riding high in world opinion to make a mark. Theocracies aren't going to bend over all at once, but if we get our foot in the door here, we can push for more reform over time. If we sit back and don't engage at all, we have no say in the process.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Amused
Ah, yes, but herein lies the hypocrisy. Did the left not frame their argument against the detaining of terrorists as being unconstitutional?

Yes, when we are the one's doing the detaining. China or Iran can't act against the US constitution in their treatment of prisoners

Well now, if we are to treat foreign terrorists with constitutional rights, should we not uphold and promote those rights universally? Or is it only expedient when you oppose the party in power?

You want to apply the US Constitution universally to how other govts treat their own people? I don't think you mean this.

And like it our not, if this UN resolution can be used to bring sanctions against a state who's media or government is seen as violating it, can those sanctions not be brought against the US?

no, since it's a nonbinding resolution.

No matter how you look at it, it's bad. And it's even worse that our president signed onto it.

We were co-sponsors, and as such had input into the drafting. We removed some language that we found problematic, such as "religious defamation." The resolution also stresses the importance of protecting free expression and speech.

You have to engage at some point. I guarantee that when member states supress or punish free speech in their countries the US delegation will to call them on it, but short of that we aren't going to start a war over it. We can't fix the whole world at once. We have an opportunity now while the US is riding high in world opinion to make a mark. Theocracies aren't going to bend over all at once, but if we get our foot in the door here, we can push for more reform over time. If we sit back and don't engage at all, we have no say in the process.

Sorry, but I stand by my statement:

Replace Obama with Bush and Islam with Christianity in this story and you'd be even more outraged than the OP.

This was NOT pragmatism, this was capitulation and you know it. The US should NEVER sign onto any resolution that seeks to punish freedom of expression or religion.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Amused
Ah, yes, but herein lies the hypocrisy. Did the left not frame their argument against the detaining of terrorists as being unconstitutional?

Yes, when we are the one's doing the detaining. China or Iran can't act against the US constitution in their treatment of prisoners

What? Well here WE (the US gov) are the ones limiting Free Speech by "backing calls for limits on freedom of expression."

Originally posted by: jonks

Well now, if we are to treat foreign terrorists with constitutional rights, should we not uphold and promote those rights universally? Or is it only expedient when you oppose the party in power?

You want to apply the US Constitution universally to how other govts treat their own people? I don't think you mean this.

Apply it to others?

No, apply it to our own government which s/b conducting itself according to the Constitutional pricipal - which it is bound by - of Free Speech.

I see no attempt here to limit other countires in the Human Rights Council to our Constitutional pricipals.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Amused
Ah, yes, but herein lies the hypocrisy. Did the left not frame their argument against the detaining of terrorists as being unconstitutional?

Yes, when we are the one's doing the detaining. China or Iran can't act against the US constitution in their treatment of prisoners

Well now, if we are to treat foreign terrorists with constitutional rights, should we not uphold and promote those rights universally? Or is it only expedient when you oppose the party in power?

You want to apply the US Constitution universally to how other govts treat their own people? I don't think you mean this.

And like it our not, if this UN resolution can be used to bring sanctions against a state who's media or government is seen as violating it, can those sanctions not be brought against the US?

no, since it's a nonbinding resolution.

No matter how you look at it, it's bad. And it's even worse that our president signed onto it.

We were co-sponsors, and as such had input into the drafting. We removed some language that we found problematic, such as "religious defamation." The resolution also stresses the importance of protecting free expression and speech.

You have to engage at some point. I guarantee that when member states supress or punish free speech in their countries the US delegation will to call them on it, but short of that we aren't going to start a war over it. We can't fix the whole world at once. We have an opportunity now while the US is riding high in world opinion to make a mark. Theocracies aren't going to bend over all at once, but if we get our foot in the door here, we can push for more reform over time. If we sit back and don't engage at all, we have no say in the process.

Sorry, but I stand by my statement:

Replace Obama with Bush and Islam with Christianity in this story and you'd be even more outraged than the OP.

This was NOT pragmatism, this was capitulation and you know it. The US should NEVER sign onto any resolution that seeks to punish freedom of expression or religion.

(how does this resolution do that?)

and you didn't answer any of the points that I addressed, but ok.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Amused
Ah, yes, but herein lies the hypocrisy. Did the left not frame their argument against the detaining of terrorists as being unconstitutional?

Yes, when we are the one's doing the detaining. China or Iran can't act against the US constitution in their treatment of prisoners

What? Well here WE (the US gov) are the ones limiting Free Speech by "backing calls for limits on freedom of expression."

Same as to amused, where does the resolution do this?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Amused
Ah, yes, but herein lies the hypocrisy. Did the left not frame their argument against the detaining of terrorists as being unconstitutional?

Yes, when we are the one's doing the detaining. China or Iran can't act against the US constitution in their treatment of prisoners

Well now, if we are to treat foreign terrorists with constitutional rights, should we not uphold and promote those rights universally? Or is it only expedient when you oppose the party in power?

You want to apply the US Constitution universally to how other govts treat their own people? I don't think you mean this.

And like it our not, if this UN resolution can be used to bring sanctions against a state who's media or government is seen as violating it, can those sanctions not be brought against the US?

no, since it's a nonbinding resolution.

No matter how you look at it, it's bad. And it's even worse that our president signed onto it.

We were co-sponsors, and as such had input into the drafting. We removed some language that we found problematic, such as "religious defamation." The resolution also stresses the importance of protecting free expression and speech.

You have to engage at some point. I guarantee that when member states supress or punish free speech in their countries the US delegation will to call them on it, but short of that we aren't going to start a war over it. We can't fix the whole world at once. We have an opportunity now while the US is riding high in world opinion to make a mark. Theocracies aren't going to bend over all at once, but if we get our foot in the door here, we can push for more reform over time. If we sit back and don't engage at all, we have no say in the process.

Sorry, but I stand by my statement:

Replace Obama with Bush and Islam with Christianity in this story and you'd be even more outraged than the OP.

This was NOT pragmatism, this was capitulation and you know it. The US should NEVER sign onto any resolution that seeks to punish freedom of expression or religion.

(how does this resolution do that?)

and you didn't answer any of the points that I addressed, but ok.

Oh, I did. You just refuse to see it.

In your bias you're attempting to paint this as pragmatic diplomacy. It is anything but. It is a complete tossing aside of the very ideals our nation stands for. LIBERAL ideals that the left supposedly champions. Deep down inside you know that but your bias blinds you to it.

Again, replace Obama with Bush and Islam with Christianity and this story would have you ranting and raving.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Amused
Ah, yes, but herein lies the hypocrisy. Did the left not frame their argument against the detaining of terrorists as being unconstitutional?

Yes, when we are the one's doing the detaining. China or Iran can't act against the US constitution in their treatment of prisoners

Well now, if we are to treat foreign terrorists with constitutional rights, should we not uphold and promote those rights universally? Or is it only expedient when you oppose the party in power?

You want to apply the US Constitution universally to how other govts treat their own people? I don't think you mean this.

And like it our not, if this UN resolution can be used to bring sanctions against a state who's media or government is seen as violating it, can those sanctions not be brought against the US?

no, since it's a nonbinding resolution.

No matter how you look at it, it's bad. And it's even worse that our president signed onto it.

We were co-sponsors, and as such had input into the drafting. We removed some language that we found problematic, such as "religious defamation." The resolution also stresses the importance of protecting free expression and speech.

You have to engage at some point. I guarantee that when member states supress or punish free speech in their countries the US delegation will to call them on it, but short of that we aren't going to start a war over it. We can't fix the whole world at once. We have an opportunity now while the US is riding high in world opinion to make a mark. Theocracies aren't going to bend over all at once, but if we get our foot in the door here, we can push for more reform over time. If we sit back and don't engage at all, we have no say in the process.

Sorry, but I stand by my statement:

Replace Obama with Bush and Islam with Christianity in this story and you'd be even more outraged than the OP.

This was NOT pragmatism, this was capitulation and you know it. The US should NEVER sign onto any resolution that seeks to punish freedom of expression or religion.

(how does this resolution do that?)

and you didn't answer any of the points that I addressed, but ok.

Oh, I did. You just refuse to see it.

In your bias you're attempting to paint this as pragmatic diplomacy. It is anything but. It is a complete tossing aside of the very ideals our nation stands for. LIBERAL ideals that the left supposedly champions. Deep down inside you know that but your bias blinds you to it.

Again, replace Obama with Bush and Islam with Christianity and this story would have you ranting and raving.

Take 3. What does the resolution say that you condemn so vehemently. Gimme a line from it. Something.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Amused
Ah, yes, but herein lies the hypocrisy. Did the left not frame their argument against the detaining of terrorists as being unconstitutional?

Yes, when we are the one's doing the detaining. China or Iran can't act against the US constitution in their treatment of prisoners

Well now, if we are to treat foreign terrorists with constitutional rights, should we not uphold and promote those rights universally? Or is it only expedient when you oppose the party in power?

You want to apply the US Constitution universally to how other govts treat their own people? I don't think you mean this.

And like it our not, if this UN resolution can be used to bring sanctions against a state who's media or government is seen as violating it, can those sanctions not be brought against the US?

no, since it's a nonbinding resolution.

No matter how you look at it, it's bad. And it's even worse that our president signed onto it.

We were co-sponsors, and as such had input into the drafting. We removed some language that we found problematic, such as "religious defamation." The resolution also stresses the importance of protecting free expression and speech.

You have to engage at some point. I guarantee that when member states supress or punish free speech in their countries the US delegation will to call them on it, but short of that we aren't going to start a war over it. We can't fix the whole world at once. We have an opportunity now while the US is riding high in world opinion to make a mark. Theocracies aren't going to bend over all at once, but if we get our foot in the door here, we can push for more reform over time. If we sit back and don't engage at all, we have no say in the process.

Sorry, but I stand by my statement:

Replace Obama with Bush and Islam with Christianity in this story and you'd be even more outraged than the OP.

This was NOT pragmatism, this was capitulation and you know it. The US should NEVER sign onto any resolution that seeks to punish freedom of expression or religion.

(how does this resolution do that?)

and you didn't answer any of the points that I addressed, but ok.

Oh, I did. You just refuse to see it.

In your bias you're attempting to paint this as pragmatic diplomacy. It is anything but. It is a complete tossing aside of the very ideals our nation stands for. LIBERAL ideals that the left supposedly champions. Deep down inside you know that but your bias blinds you to it.

Again, replace Obama with Bush and Islam with Christianity and this story would have you ranting and raving.

Take 3. What does the resolution say that you condemn so vehemently. Gimme a line from it. Something.

They are inj the OP and link provided.

The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Amused
Ah, yes, but herein lies the hypocrisy. Did the left not frame their argument against the detaining of terrorists as being unconstitutional?

Yes, when we are the one's doing the detaining. China or Iran can't act against the US constitution in their treatment of prisoners

What? Well here WE (the US gov) are the ones limiting Free Speech by "backing calls for limits on freedom of expression."

Same as to amused, where does the resolution do this?

Seems to me I answered that above - "limiting Free Speech by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression".

But perhaps you asking what is the enforcement mechanism, what is the penalty for violating the provision limiting Free Speech that we are advocating. If so, how is that important? How does that in any way translate into anything other than our government is advocating a free speech limitation in controvention of our Constitution?

Whatever the penalty, or lack thereof, we are still pushing a provision that violates our own Constitution.

Are you advocating that it is OK, or not, depending upon some graduated scale based upon the penalty? If so, I vcannot agree.

Fern