Okay, so now I *am* going to United Fan Con. Apparently their money situation has sorted itself out (the fact that Aaron Douglas dropped out probably freed up some funds, I’d think) and I was reinvited.
Honestly, I toyed with the idea of saying forget it, but that didn’t seem fair to all the fans who’d written me expressing dismay over my not being there, especially since they’d purchased nonrefundable tickets.
So I’ll be there.
PAD
• 
Micha treated “Severe semantic intolerance” and “severe semantic-intolerance” as literally interchangeable text to portray me as a hypocrite:
That’s substantially less casual than an “error.”
You won’t cite an example because it doesn’t exist.
When the hypocrisy it establishes is yours, what is that to me?
Metaphors are, by definition, representational.
And I didn’t imply you were a snake. I implied you have no spine. Snakes eat rats, they don’t aspire to rat-hood.
Let me rephrase: I don’t need to establish “severe semantic-intolerance” and “severe semantic intolerance” as mutually exclusive in meaning to establish your hypocrisy.
Jeffrey, you are putting words in my mouth. For example:
I said “When the SCOTUS rules that libel laws are constitutional, it is in effect saying that the right of free speech as enumerated in the Constitution ends when false writings about a person are made with the intent to defame or injure a reputation. By Constitutional definition, such writings are NOT free speech, and as such, congress is free to make whatever laws they want about it.”
You said I said: “you stated that when SCOTUS ruled that libel laws were constitutional that meant that libel was not speech.”
So, as you can see, what I said was that the rulings of the SCOTUS determine what actions are considered covered by the right of free speech, which should be clear to anyone looking at the historical rulings that not all actions of speech are covered by the right of free speech. That seems so obvious to me that your actions in mis-intepreting my statements suggest that you’re just arguing for argument’s sake.
Likewise, your recital of the numerous amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, and possible others, supporting your idea that the First Amendment can be applied to actions beyond those taken by the Federal government. Once again, I never raised the issue of any other Amendments…you did. I did not, specifically, because the First Amendment, unlike other Amendmets, contains the explicit limitation to acts of Congress, and by extension the rest of the Federal Government. No amount of application of the other Amendments to general parties is ever going to open up the protections of the First Amendment beyond limiting what the Federal government can do.
If cases exists that appear to do so, I can guarantee you that you’ll find a funding/money/legal authorization trail connected to the Feds. Because that’s the way the First Amendment is written. Looking at any other Amendment that doesn’t contain such a limitation is pointless, because it’s not even persuasive toa judge. It’s apples and rocks. They have nothing to do with each other.
Jeffrey, I think you’re falling prey to (with apologies to the Wonder Pets)”the beauty of words.”
Free speech…at least as viewed legally…is not the sum of the parts of it’s words. It’s a legal term of art. It doesn’t even apply to only verbal communication. It’s a concept that covers many forms of expession, in many different mediums, and has some clear (child pørņ) and not so clear (generall pørņ) limits as to what’s considered protected expressions, and what’s not protected.
In fact, your summary of your impression of what a First Amendment asbolutist is pretty much confirms Mike’s statement that free speech is a misnomer.
bobb alfred: It stands to reason that if
1. Congress may not limit free speech, and acknowledges so;
2. Congress limits libel; and
3. Congress declares that limiting libel is not limiting free speech
Then Congress is declaring that libel is not speech. I do not like libel, and do not have a problem with imposing penalties for it, but I think it is disingenuous to claim that there is an absolute First Amendment prohibition on Congress abridging free speech and at the same time to temporize that certain things that appear to be speech are not – so it’s fine to abridge them.
You are correct that there are certain limitations on free speech in this country (and every other); That is an absolute fact which I accept – but it is an unavoidable impediment to an absolutist view of First Amendment freedom.
You make a hugely important point: “Free speech” is construed legally essentially as “speech which the court wishes to respect as worthy of protection” – very specifically NOT “speech: The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings or perceptions by the articulation of words.” (The Free Dictionary). Without exaggeration, the current judicial view of free speech can be summed up in this way:
We love, respect and intend to protect free speech without exception.
Free speech is defined as the sort of speech which we love, respect and intend to protect.
What we do not love, respect and intend to protect, although it is the act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings or perceptions by the articulation of words, we declare not to be speech.
By this reasoning, no form of what meets the definition of speech has any absolute protection from censorship, prior restraint or other abridgement. All it takes to remove protection is to determine “Oh, that isn’t what we meant when we said ‘speech’!” “Senator X is a syphilitic pedophile traitor who killed Representative Y on Thursday” is an indefensible libel, of course, but it is also the use of words to express a thought, feeling or perception. Linguistically, it is speech. The fact that it is held legally not to be speech demonstrates that any perception of free speech as an absolute value or protection is a fiction which says nothing more than “We absolutely will not do what we will not do, and whatever we do, we declare, will not be what we have sworn we will not do – it will be something else.”
I’m not sure our current system is such a bad one, but it is a lie to claim that it has, or that anyone is seriously proposing, absolutist free speech protection, under the First Amendment or any other mechanism.
That seems so obvious to me that your actions in mis-intepreting my statements suggest that you’re just arguing for argument’s sake.
Y’think?
PAD
Jeffrey, I can’t put this any more clearly, so if you fail to get it this time, I honest will stop trying. But here goes:
“Free speech,” as meant by the first Amendment, does not mean speech, as stated in the dictionary.
You can’t make a statement about “free speech,” and then conclude by talking about “speech.” As you use those terms, they are related and connected in various ways, but they are not the same thing. You can’t interchance speech with the Constitutional concept of free speech, because each contains elemtents that exceed the definition of the other.
Free speech includes burning a flag to protest official action. Speech does not. Speech includes falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater with the intent to create a panic. Free speech does not include (under most circumstances) that act. You use the terms fungably and attempt to discuss them, but they are not fungable terms, and one does not equal the other. They are at the same time both more and less than the other, and attempting to use one to make a point about the other is like trying to provide an answer in French to someone who’s asked you a question in Spanish.
As to your view here: “Free speech is defined as the sort of speech which we love, respect and intend to protect.”
This is wrong. Free speech is defined as those acts that express an idea or opinion, regardless of content or in many cases personel merit, that do not infringe upon the rights of others in such a way that those other rights should superceed any protection that would otherwise be afforeded to that expression. It specifically covers expressions that are not loved, or accepted, or popular. Pornography is the best example…distastful to some, disgusting to others, yet protected by the First Amendment so long as it’s not exhibited in front of what society considers to be a vulnerable class of people, namely children. But many people would say they don’t respect it, don’t love it, and would be happy to never see it, or to even know it exists.
“By this reasoning, no form of what meets the definition of speech has any absolute protection from censorship, prior restraint or other abridgement.”
While your path here may not be correct, I agree with the reasoning. No form of any expression is 100% protected. That’s sort of the point. It’s not a rulebook, it’s a right, and that means that it has to be examined and compared to how it might interact, or conflict with, other rights. Flag burning may be protected, but burning a flag that you don’t own is not.
“I’m not sure our current system is such a bad one, but it is a lie to claim that it has, or that anyone is seriously proposing, absolutist free speech protection, under the First Amendment or any other mechanism.”
If you’d put your dictionary down for a moment, and consider how many terms under the law don’t mean what they appear to mean, you might be able to grasp what people are actually talking about.
“Y’think?
PAD”
What can I say? I’m willing to bash my head against the wall for longer than others. And I think I’m turning into an old softie…reading Mike’s back and forth with Jeffrey, I couldn’t help but think back to an old 80s or so X-Men line, were someone is complaining about Cyclops, and Wolverine steps up and says “back off, bub. Cylcops may be a jerk, but he’s our jerk.” Or something along those lines.
And Mike, I’m saying that as affectionately as I can. You’ve said some jerky things, either I’m just not caring anymore that you snark, or you’re toning it down and contributing more. It’s hard to say, because your posting style is still dense, and I tend to skim them.
Peter,
Thanks for coming to the show this weekend! You were a fun guest and, as I said on Sunday, your reading on Saturday was well done. It will be fun to read the finshed tale.
bobb Alfred “And Mike, I’m saying that as affectionately as I can. You’ve said some jerky things, either I’m just not caring anymore that you snark,”
Probably
“or you’re toning it down”
No, he doesn’t, but since most people are not bothering to fight with him things do not escalate
“and contributing more.”
Not intentionally, but I googled ‘not-man’ and then looked in the encyclopedia of philosophy. Some interesting stuff, even if Mike only posted it to serve his own vanity. I doubt if I’ll do more research on the term, but I did learn something I didn’t know and I could learn more if I chose. Apparently the term not-man is connected with Aristotelian logic, medieval philosophy, Nietze, feminism and budhism.
and he’s also pretty funny if you look at his posts in the right spirit.
“Free speech” is like any other freedom – it’s free so long as it harms no-one else.
You have freedom of assembly – unless your “assembly” is someone else’s “riot”.
You have the freedom to swing your fist anywhere you want – except that that freedom ends at the end of *my* nose.
You are free to walk anywhere you like – unless it’s private property.
All of the “freedoms” referred to in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution carried such limitations.
Or, to phrease it a different way: “An thou do no harm, ‘Do what thou wilt’ shall be the whole of the Law.”
It specifically covers expressions that are not loved, or accepted, or popular. Pornography is the best example…distastful to some, disgusting to others, yet protected by the First Amendment so long as it’s not exhibited in front of what society considers to be a vulnerable class of people, namely children.
That just reminds me of an exchange between a religious activist and Josiah Bartlett in the pilot of “West Wing.” It went something like:
“Mr. President, may I ask you a question?”
“Of course.”
“If children can buy pornography on any street corner for five dollars, isn’t that too high a price to pay for free speech?”
“No.”
“Really?”
“However, I do think that five dollars is too high a price to pay for pornography.”
PAD
$5? That’s cheaper than some console/PC game magazines out today. In fact, probably cheaper than most of them.
In any absolutist sense, “free speech” should be “speech” which is “free.” Here, and in bobb’s posts, “speech” is bargained down to “words which express thoughts, feelings or impressions – so long as the thoughts, feelings or impressions are not vile (as each speaker defines that). Ugliness, unpopularity and immorality might define what kind of speech something is, but it cannot make it not speech.
Absolute free speech can only exist if speech is a clearly understood thing which cannot be redefined whenever the result is unpleasant, and if it is free – without cost or punishment. I’m sorry, but I don’t want that, and neither do you.
This “free speech lite” is nothing but “Sure, you can say anything you like – well, not THAT – but remember, I’m going to take your money and throw you in a hole if I don’t like what you say.
I am not free to threaten to kill someone. I am not free to defraud another person by lying about a product I am selling. I am not free to perjure myself in court. I am not free to use forbidden language while speaking on television.
If anyone believed in “absolute free speech,” he would have to accept absolutely all speech as absolutely free. When free is limited to those things we like and “speech” is limited to a particular kind of speech, it is very far from absolute, free, or speech.
bobb: Oh, I get it” To a lawyer, “free speech” is a limited degree of protection of something which is not necessarily speech, and which may not include all speech. Then it must be nothing but a pretty phrase some people like, rather than a constitutionally protected absolute right. Just how is that different from this formulation: “Congress shall pass no law infringing speech (with the understanding that really nasty stuff can be exempted by labelling it libel, hate speech, lies, copyright infringement, or treason {reserving the right to add new categories as needed})” – or, perhaps more simply, “The American people have an absolute, God-given right to do anything of which we don’t disapprove.”
Oh dear. If the right is reserved to decide what is “speech” then no speech is protected at all.
Jeffrey, I’m done with you. I’ve made my points as simply and as clearly as I know how to. You either refuse or are incapable of grasping some very simple concepts…I mean, honestly, don’t they teach the basics about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in 6th grade? Or at least on Schoolhouse Rock?
Micha, I hear the “not-man” likes to use “a quotation marks” to cite an “ang of the replies” depending on whether or not his “critirion is too narrow” to violate the applicable “libal laws.”
Oh, and you’re a hypocrite.
bobb alfred: You obviously believe I do not grasp some simple concepts, but that is also true of you. I’ll use small words.
PAD very proudly proclaims that he is a First Amendment absolutist.
Oh, what is that?
Well, it is an absolute belief that Congress shall pass no law abridging free speech.
That sounds nice, but what about libel, treason, copyright infringement and such things?
Oh, that’s not a matter of free speech, you dummy!
Why not?
bobb alfred: Let me take this. When we say “absolute free speech” you are an idiot to think it refers to “absolute” (always, without modification or exception) “free” (without cost) or “speech” (verbal expression of a thought, impression or opinion). Free speech is a marvelous, magnificent thing, but you are an idiot to suggest that we pin it down with generally agreed upon definitions. Free speech is a matter for lawyers to define as need be.
I’m not kidding here. The idea that PAD (or anyone else) favors absolute free speech as any or all of those constituent words state is ludicrous. PAD would clarify: No, I am an absolutist about the First Amendment, not free speech. That’s fine, but where is the absolutism in that? He believes, ABSOLUTELY in the protection and observation of the First Amendment, perhaps, but his conception of the First Amendment is a very relativistic thing: Free speech must always be protected – yes – but we just can’t put our finger on what is speech and what is not; If an utterance or publication is REALLY offensive, guys, you know…it isn’t speech! It’s something else, so it doesn’t need to be protected. This comes down to a completely amorphous rule, but one impossible to deny:
We believe, absolutely, in protecting everyone’s right to say what we believe is worthy of being protected. We are outraged, we tell you, that anyone would think this is a firm promise of nothing at all. That’s just the kind of comment which is not speech, it offends us so!!
This is not a joke. What is absolutely protected by this “First Amendment absolutism”? If PAD had said “I believe strongly in the First Amendment; I think free speech is among the most fundamental protections provided by the Constitution: It is vital.” I would agree. Believing that Absolute Free Speech exists, should exist or can exist is wrong. bobb alfred strongly defends the term “free speech” as a legalistic term of art which means whatever one is able to convince a court it means at a given time. He is correct that this is what exists and what is protected by the United States Constitution. He is not correct that this has any firm relationship to any absolute “free” (as this word is defined in English) “speech” (as this word is defined in English). It is possible we are using the word “absolute” in the true sense – but only applying it to a limited subset of “speech” which is not necessarily speech, and which does not include all speech.
Bûggër off, Jeffrey.
Because, as I said before, “freedom of speech” as it’s referred to in the 1st is a misnomer. Since its writing, “free speech” has been retconned by judicial review as what is better described as “protected speech” — to the approval of 99% of US citizens, including you. And it’ll stay that way until you lead scotus to interpret the 1st literally — which doesn’t seem to be what you even want, áššhølë — or until you lead the congress to the write the amendment necessary to rephrase the 1st to literally say what we’ve already got it doing. n ≠ Rocket+Surgery
I don’t normally like to say this, but in this instance Mike is correct. “Free Speech” is not at all construed by Congress, the courts or many of the people as anything other than “protection of the kind of speech we agree should be protected.” It is a completely separate matter to consider whether an absolute free speech right is desireable or even possible. I think it is not possible, because people will always find instances of speech they find unworthy of protection, and will always find a way to redefine speech so as to forbid it. I think it is not even desireable, because there are instances of speech whose harm far outweighs the general benefit of free speech.
bobb alfred: Your response betrays your ignorance – and perhaps a preoccupation with sodomy. (I had no idea!)
We heard you have the anus of a 7-year-old boy. Why you tease us?
Seriously, are some of you nuts trying to get banned? Is this some kind of badge of honor in the whack-job community? Pitiful.
Mike, I do not have the anus of a 7-year-old boy: If you know where to find one, why don’t you keep it to yourself?
Bill Mulligan: It kind of ties into this whole free speech topic that none of us are obligated to agree with you. I would never flatter myself that PAD does not think me an áššhølë, but where in the hëll would his blog be if it consisted of nothing but:
PAD: This is what happened, and here is what I think about that.
Person A: That’s right. Ooh yes.
Person B: I couldn’t agree more. PAD is smart!
Person C: Yes!!!
Person D: Why is that? What about this?
Bill Mulligan: Why are you such an ášš, Person D? PAD has spent his whole LIFE defending free speech, so where do you think you get the right to DISAGREE with him? Oh, my blood pressure, ooooh, it doesn’t feel good…
I was paraphrasing Borat, and quite frankly I’m not all that attracted to an anus that’s loose like a wizard’s sleeve. What’s the big deal?
Oh yeah, I stand corrected. backs away, slowly
Someday you may be generous enough to explain the appeal of a partner who can clog a toilet. Until then, there isn’t a whole lot I can do with your otherwise-arbitrary disgust.
Mike, someday you may be generous enough to tell us what you’re talking about. I admit that I missed the Borat reference, as I have always made a point of avoiding Sasha Baron Cohen. Others may disagree, but I see no humor in a British Jew who pretends to be a Kazakh, spews outrageously antisemitic comments to an American audience and then condemns his unwitting costars for agreeing with him. If he thinks it’s so bad to say things like that, he shouldn’t say them. I am no fan of the school of thought that a black/Jew/other is empowered by using vile stereotypes about his own group but outsiders had better not follow suit. If it’s bad to say N_____ or K___, it’s bad for anybody.
You’ve cited no text by me you’ve demonstrated you don’t understand.
Who has he condemned?
Mike: You want some explicit statement that I don’t understand you, so here: I don’t understand you.
Regarding Cohen/Borat: It is my understanding that he condemned those Americans he met and filmed while playing Borat who sang along with his “throw a Jew down a well”-type songs and statements as boorish yahoos. I would admit that anyone who acts antisemitically can rightly be called a bigot, but “Borat”/Cohen wrote, sang and spoke those words first. I don’t subscribe to the “Oh, I was being satirical, but those idiots AGREED with me when I said those nasty things!” rhetoric. If saying such things is bad, then that’s that: He said them first. Tortuously bringing this back to the subject of free speech, of course he has the right to talk like a Mujaheddin, and to criticize those who go along with him, just as I have the right to think he is an unfunny hypocrite.
I never denied you didn’t understand me. This is how you demonstrate you are an Úšhølë.™
You’ve said you are single, so my guess is you must receive a generous salary or be independently wealthy. Or you collect trophies from stalking and murdering people. Because something must carry you without even your sterile claim to integrity — the “intolerance of semantic errors” — which you betray by indulging in your self-serving hypocrisy.
Whatever powerful benefactor or patron carries you, it’s wasted on you. Try to not consider this whenever you review it.
He literally chastises no one he interacts with as Borat. You are not only an Úšhølë™ you are, again, Wrong.™
A “You’ve cited no text by me you’ve demonstrated you don’t understand.”
B “Or you collect trophies from stalking and murdering people.”
C “Úšhølë ™”
D “Wrong ™”
all quotes by Mike
Fine, Mike: A) There are four quotes above. I don’t understand what psychoses cause you to rave as you do. B) I don’t understand how you could be mistaken and reckless enough to claim I’ve killed anybody or taken trophies (and this is just the kind of libelous non-speech which seems to have been exempted from First Amendment protection, if you’ve been following this thread). C) “Úšhølë” is not trademarked, so pretending it is is a lie. D) “Wrong” is not trademarked, either. If it were, the fact that you have so often appropriated its use without attribution or compensation would have nullified that trademark.
Because you feel so free in making assumptions about me, I will do the same about you: You are an unattractive, physically weak coward who has no choice but to accept the abuse of those around you. When you go online you assume a persona which is as inconsistent with your own life as it is annoying to those who force themselves to read your garbage. Your insistence on consistency, honesty and reason (all as you define and re-define them) indicates great self-doubt as to your ability to accomplish any of them yourself. Your manic denunciation of a complete stranger as a killer who takes trophies suggests an unreasonable paranoia: Sorry, but I am not going to come to your home and put your minuscule testicles into my scrapbook – so I must disappoint you there.
Mike: Cohen may “literally” chastise no one in his persona of Borat, but the intent of Cohen as himself and as a filmmaker, is to show up those ignorant Americans as antisemitic cretins for daring to go along with what he said in his Borat guise. Apparently he thinks that because he is so smart it is one thing for him to say “Throw a Jew down a well” and something else for someone to say “Okay!” I don’t have much sympathy for the buffoons who went along with “Borat,” or for the performer who felt superior enough to call for his own people’s extermination – all very ironically, I’m sure.
Anybody got some popcorn?
I was just thinking the same thing, Craig. Or any good leftover Halloween candy?
You heard it here folks, challenging Hypocrisy™ qualifies as raving.
As anyone who’s seen Schoolhouse Rock™ knows, you didn’t cite me making any such a claim.
Not from your lack of trying to establish the monopolies.
I’ve given an account of the rules I live by, interacting here has forced me to articulate the justifications for my actions I justified previously only as intuition, and my life has benefited from it. My circulation, my breathing, and my thinking are all dilated and I feel really well in accord with this. I’m faster to challenge sweet-natured people when they’re wrong, and how my work is reviewed has benefited tremendously from this. Since I get better and better, whatever in your account of me you’ve fabricated that’s compatible with my own account is fine with me.
As for “unattractive,” when cashiers give me the Cashier Finger-Tickle™ in all the states I’ve ever lived in, how much more attractive do I need to be?
Thank you for taking my correction. It’s a wonder you feel the need to challenge anything I say.
I was just thinking the same thing, Craig. Or any good leftover Halloween candy?
It’s like watching Beavis slugging it out with Bûŧŧhëád in Thunderdome.
PAD
Okay: I’ll put this is all capitals so it is clear: PAD AND OTHERS WERE RIGHT THAT IT WAS STUPID TO CONTINUE WITH THIS. I’ll try to use a bit more judgment (for a while). I’ll admit that I do get some perverse pleasure from evincing Mike’s psychoses, but it’s still a waste of time.
Who run Bartertown? Say loud.
This thread has gradualy become like a post-apocaltic wasteland whose last inhabitants have revereted to canibalism; a barren waste created by trolls and dominated by their ‘rules’ where honest discussion premised on mutual respect and understanding has become impossible.This is the ‘win’ Mike has always been looking for. It is no surprise that he’s left alone to celebrate on the wreckage he helped create. Welcome to the age of Mike.
Micha, why does there have to be a special category of Wrong™ for you? Why doesn’t the Wrong™ you do — that qualifies as Wrong™ for everyone else — not mean that you’re ever Wrong?™
“It’s like watching Beavis slugging it out with Bûŧŧhëád in Thunderdome.”
Only paradoxically twice as verbose and yet half as witty.
If this keeps going and the popcorn and candy run out, shall I whip up a cheesecake?
Posted by: Craig J. Ries
Anybody got some popcorn?
Posted by: Patrick Calloway
I was just thinking the same thing, Craig. Or any good leftover Halloween candy?
Lessee – what was that quote?
Oh, yeah – “Dubillex, when you’ve been around as long as I have, you know that the only worthwhile things you can bring to a catfight are popcorn and a drink.”
Popcoorrrn, peanuuuuts, Crackah Jaaack…
Getcha snacks here!
Five dollas each or two for six dollas! What a deal… Five dollas each or two for six dollas!
Cold drinks! Getcha cold drinks heeare!!
Three dollas a pop for pop! Four dollas beer!
Getcha refreshments heeare!!
^-^
Y’all can keep carrying on, but you simply seem to continue to make what I say relevant by providing the examples:
Y’all carry on at this site about the dysfunctional state of the world in one form or another, but you insist on reserving for yourselves as a privilege the same hypocrisy those who nurture and benefit from the problems you are carrying on about in the first place depend on. It’s the behavior through which all we consider evil is bottlenecked — and nurturing evil is pretty much all it’s good for.
The applicable metaphor for you seems to be “circle jerk.” If you balk at this portrayal, it isn’t like you don’t have the option to simply divest yourself of Wrongness,™ giving up your penny or nickel of privilege to recover a dollar of problem-solving. If there’s an afterlife, and you can’t look the vikings and the samurai and the other wild things in the eye, try to forget you were given another option.
You know what? You’re right, I’ll have the popcorn please.
“It’s the behavior through which all we consider evil is bottlenecked – and nurturing evil is pretty much all it’s good for.”
I address this not to Mike, but to someone who speaks English: What does this mean? Literally, it appears to be saying: The hypocrisy of which Mike accuses us is how all we consider evil is jumbled into one lane and slowed; Nurturing evil is the main thing this hypocrisy is good for. [very free translation] I would not go so far as to say the hypocrisy Mike sees here is present, but if it were, can see no way in which it could ever bottleneck “all we consider evil.” If it could do that, however, it would seem like a good thing to do so. What could be his objection to slowing and irritating “all we consider evil”? I have (more or less by accident) found myself in agreement with one point Mike made sometime in the past. When he learns to express himself in English it is possible that will happen again. Anything is possible.
Getcha scorecards and DSM-IV!!! Can’t tell the psychosis without yer DSM-IV!!!