U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 09-30-2012, 10:33 AM
 
5,787 posts, read 4,059,635 times
Reputation: 849

Advertisements

During the September 25 broadcast of the PBS Newshour, anchor Gwen Ifill invited Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haas and former U.S. Ambassador Nicholas Burns to discuss President Barack Obama’s foreign policy and his recent address to the UN. Reporter Judy Woodruff also had a segment on the president speech. Yet none of the segments dealing with the address mentioned the fact that the Obama administration has expressed support for anti-blasphemy measures that are completely incongruous with the freedom of speech as protected by the U.S. Constitution.














[/indent]At his inauguration, like all his predecessors, President Obama swore to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution of the United States, including the First Amendment. Actions of his administration that undercut that protection deserve to be covered thoroughly by the media, especially taxpayer-subsidized media like PBS.

Last edited by CaseyB; 09-30-2012 at 04:48 PM.. Reason: copyright violation
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-30-2012, 10:37 AM
 
Location: in a cabin overlooking the mountains
3,078 posts, read 3,803,604 times
Reputation: 2257
I'll quote from OP's post:

Quote:
Given the power of faith in our lives and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression.
How is this "support for an anti-blasphemy" law?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2012, 10:39 AM
 
5,787 posts, read 4,059,635 times
Reputation: 849
This story also exemplifies Obama's duplicity....

He makes loads of statements about protecting free speech for the American public's consumption, but works with the UN to pass anti-blasphemy resolutions.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2012, 10:42 AM
 
5,787 posts, read 4,059,635 times
Reputation: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrugalYankee View Post
I'll quote from OP's post:



How is this "support for an anti-blasphemy" law?

Ummmmm.......that's what he says in public.

Yet behind the scenes, his administration contradicted that by backing and voting FOR the anti-blasphemy resolution at the UN.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2012, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Out in the Badlands
10,422 posts, read 9,010,724 times
Reputation: 7760
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt800 View Post
During the September 25 broadcast of the PBS Newshour, anchor Gwen Ifill invited Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haas and former U.S. Ambassador Nicholas Burns to discuss President Barack Obama’s foreign policy and his recent address to the UN. Reporter Judy Woodruff also had a segment on the president speech. Yet none of the segments dealing with the address mentioned the fact that the Obama administration has expressed support for anti-blasphemy measures that are completely incongruous with the freedom of speech as protected by the U.S. Constitution.


Woodruff’s segment featured President Obama addressing the UN saying:
The attacks of last two weeks are not simply an assault on America. They’re also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded.

If we are serious about these ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of the crisis, because we face a choice between the forces that would drive us apart and the hopes that we hold in common.


[…]


Given the power of faith in our lives and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression.


It is more speech, the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
That doesn’t sound like a policy aimed at supporting “more speech” in our civil discourse. You’ll recall that the Los Angeles Times reported on September 13 that the Obama administration had flagged the trailer for “Innocence of Islam” and reported it to YouTube to see if it violated the Terms of Service agreement on the site. As the Times noted, that complaint was filed on September 11, before it was known that Amb. Stevens and three other Americans had been murdered by violent extremists with ties to al Qaeda.
And as John Hayward of Human Events wrote on September 14:
This is not an entirely new development. The Heritage Foundation recalls that ‘As recently as December 19, 2011, the U.S. voted for and was instrumental in passing ‘U.N. Resolution 16/18’ against ‘religious intolerance,’ ‘condemning the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion.’ While this may sound innocuous, it was the latest incarnation of a highly controversial ‘anti-blasphemy’ resolution that has been pushed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at the United Nations since 1999.”
Patrick Goodenough wrote back in December of 2011, that “the resolution, an initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), is based on one passed by the U.N.’s Human Rights Council in Geneva last spring [of 2011]. The State Department last week hosted a meeting to discuss ways of ‘implementing’ it.” After all, “U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 was negotiated between the Obama Administration and Egypt, a prominent member of the Saudi-championed Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).”


Obama’s critics on this front are not just conservatives. Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley wrote back in October of 2009 in USA Today that:
around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.
Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute also wrote on September 13 that:
the…administration was earlier criticized by legal scholars for effectively endorsing anti-blasphemy legislation. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh and George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin lamented the Administration’s support for proposals at the United Nations to restrict ‘hate speech’ against Islam and other religions.
At his inauguration, like all his predecessors, President Obama swore to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution of the United States, including the First Amendment. Actions of his administration that undercut that protection deserve to be covered thoroughly by the media, especially taxpayer-subsidized media like PBS.
PBS...fair and balanced...ha ha ha ha ha ha
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2012, 10:50 AM
 
5,787 posts, read 4,059,635 times
Reputation: 849
I guess the Liberals here don't even bother reading posts before they make fools of themselves and quite predictably attacking the messenger:



Obama’s critics on this front are not just conservatives. Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley wrote back in October of 2009 in USA Today that:
around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2012, 11:04 AM
 
6,133 posts, read 4,808,236 times
Reputation: 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrugalYankee View Post
I'll quote from OP's post:

'...the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression.'

How is this "support for an anti-blasphemy" law?
Because in the context it says the following:

'It is more speech, the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.'


It seems that he was trying to say that we need to speak out against the type of speech that reflects bigotry and blashphemy - that is the type demonstrated by the maker of the movie or those speaking against the prophet. Woodruff does not seem (at least by these comments) to be saying he wants to ban certain speech but by consensus of voices silence those who engage in it - which may or may not be for certain laws but at least for social marginalization through speech.

Also, note that this quote by Woodruff seems to put more of an import on being against hate speech, by speech, rather than hate itself - that is the actions of muslims who actuall kill and oppress people. He would rather speak against hate speech than speak against hate - but that is the point of the people who speak against hate - they must engage by speech against actions they believe to be wrong - that is the actions of the prophet that others think are noble. And those that think it noble think that to speak against him is blasphemous.

This is illogical to think that you should speak against hate speech but not speak against those that have hated (like Muhammad) for that is bigotry and blasphemy. Ah! The brilliance of the progressive left and the U.N.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2012, 11:13 AM
 
5,787 posts, read 4,059,635 times
Reputation: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
Because in the context it says the following:

'It is more speech, the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.'


It seems that he was trying to say that we need to speak out against the type of speech that reflects bigotry and blashphemy - that is the type demonstrated by the maker of the movie or those speaking against the prophet. Woodruff does not seem (at least by these comments) to be saying he wants to ban certain speech but by consensus of voices silence those who engage in it - which may or may not be for certain laws but at least for social marginalization through speech.

Also, note that this quote by Woodruff seems to put more of an import on being against hate speech, by speech, rather than hate itself - that is the actions of muslims who actuall kill and oppress people. He would rather speak against hate speech than speak against hate - but that is the point of the people who speak against hate - they must engage by speech against actions they believe to be wrong - that is the actions of the prophet that others think are noble. And those that think it noble think that to speak against him is blasphemous.

This is illogical to think that you should speak against hate speech but not speak against those that have hated (like Muhammad) for that is bigotry and blasphemy. Ah! The brilliance of the progressive left and the U.N.

Well said Shiloh...well said and spot on!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2012, 11:24 AM
 
6,133 posts, read 4,808,236 times
Reputation: 1957
Does it not seem curious that those who are vigorously against hate speech, by trying to enact laws, are the ones who are the most hateful, religous oppresors, of the modern era. And yet the progressive left falls for it like a bunch of lemmings.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2012, 12:26 PM
 
Location: in a cabin overlooking the mountains
3,078 posts, read 3,803,604 times
Reputation: 2257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
Because in the context it says the following:

'It is more speech[/i][/u], the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.'

It seems that he was trying to say that we need to speak out against the type of speech that reflects bigotry and blasphemy -
And what exactly is wrong with speaking out against hate speech? Can you imagine how different the 20th century would have been for example of German citizens had spoken out against bigotry and blasphemy targeting Jews?

Maybe you prefer to sit by and do nothing, I prefer to speak up and say that it is wrong. Remember? They came for the Jews and I said nothing because I am not a Jew; they came for the Catholics and I said nothing becuase i am not a Catholic; when they came for me there was no one left to say anything.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top