For Outsports' resident Chicken Littles who get off on the idea that America is a police state, here's required reading.

Ashcroft is still AG, and the Village Voice still hates him.

If things are as bad as the author claims, I assume that by now she has not only been fired by the Village Voice, but also arrested by John Ashcroft himself for daring to dissent.

More questions . . .

From the article: "Other outlandish cases of repression and neighborly ratting crept into national consciousness—or at least were splashed across lefty Web sites—as the year wore on ..."

Were these websites shut down? If not, there seems to be some degree of dissent and free speech still to be found.

From the article: "Like any muscle, democratic freedoms atrophy if they are not exercised. That's what Sacramento Bee publisher Janis Besler Heaphy wanted to tell graduates at California State University when she was invited to give a commencement address last December. "The Constitution makes it our right to challenge government policies," she said. "Our culture makes it our duty. Raising issues. Asking questions. Debating options." But the students didn't hear her. They drowned her out and drove her from the stage with their patriotic shouting."

But weren't these students, through their protest, merely exercising their freedom of speech and expression? Should they have been silenced?

General Ashcroft's Detention Camps (Nat Hentoff)


[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
there seems to be some degree of dissent and free speech still to be found.

---

"Some degree" is not what's guaranteed, Wm. Cuba has "some degree." At least try harder to keep up a cosmetic appearance of logic and honesty.

When "lefty" students drowned out conservative speakers in the past, fair-minded civil libertarians like Nat Hentoff rightfully condemned them; I'm sure you weren't so fond of such expression then...

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:



"Some degree" is not what's guaranteed, Wm. Cuba has "some degree." At least try harder to keep up a cosmetic appearance of logic and honesty.

When "lefty" students drowned out conservative speakers in the past, fair-minded civil libertarians like Nat Hentoff rightfully condemned them; I'm sure you weren't so fond of such expression then...

---

But to hear the lefties talk, free speech and dissent has been completely wiped out. That's obviously not the case, thus there is still "some degree" remaining compared to the void depicted by the left. And as far as this "cosmetic appearance" you want me to keep up - who do you think I am, Katherine Harris?

I'm ambivalent about "drowning out" people. The southern gentleman in me thinks that - er, let me rephrase . . . the southern gentleman part of my personality thinks it's rude, but my inner radical finds shouting an enemy down invigorating. Be that as it may, I do think it falls under freedom of expression, speech, etc. This is a tactic, though, that the author of this article obviously thinks should be employed only by the left.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
But to hear the lefties talk, free speech and dissent has been completely wiped out.

---

Another total caricature.

In addition to the unconstitutional aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act that have kept unknown persons "detained" without charges, there is a long list of examples of chilling speech by intimidation and conspiracy to quiet dissent from the federal and mega-corporate levels on down... from the CNN chief who instructed that there was to be NO on-air mention of dead Afghani civilians without piping up about the 9/11 dead, to Ari Fleischer's infamous watch-what-you-say advice, to the obnoxious red white & blue ribbons on every pole and tree in my neighborhood, left over from the anniversary and now an implicit endorsement of Cowboy Shrub's coming escapade.

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Bill W ]

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:


Another total caricature.

In addition to the unconstitutional aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act that have kept unknown persons "detained" without charges, there is a long list of examples of chilling speech by intimidation and conspiracy to quiet dissent at the federal and mega-corporate levels... to the obnoxious red white & blue ribbons on every pole and tree in my neighborhood, left over from the anniversary and now an implicit endorsement of Cowboy Shrub's coming escapade.

---

The federal government and mega-corporations put up red, white and blue ribbons in your neighborhood? Or are you seeing dissent quieted at the federal and mega-corporate levels? Does that mean dissent is alive and well at the local level? Whatever the case may be, you seem to envision red, white and blue ribbons as "examples of chilling speech by intimidation and conspiracy to quiet dissent at the federal and mega-corporate levels." I don't get the connection, but then I'm not you.

[quote]But to hear the lefties talk, free speech and dissent has been completely wiped out.

---

I believe that is called "setting up a straw man." No one is claiming that speech and dissent have been "completely wiped out," but that they are diminishing. Or is your point that because the suppression of civil liberties could be worse, we shouldn't say anything? Should we wait until it is impossible to say anything without being arrested?

And why aren't more conservatives worried about the increasing amount of unchecked authority being claimed by this administration? Wasn't it their idol Ronald Reagan who once said "Government IS the problem"?

Oooohhh, bitchslapping between W1865 & Bill W. Pardon me while I go get a chair and a cold drink.........

Jim Allen, that is exactly the type of spectator mentality Outsports was designed to eliminate from gay men. If you want to see some bitch slapping, get out there and slap with the rest of them. Don't count on others to be the competitor for you.

Nah, I'd much rather sit on the couch, nice cold glass of iced tea in hand. It's funny when I see a personal ad that basically says "I love hiking, the outdoors, leading an active life" because that's totally the opposite of me.

As you were, gentlemen.

I've got a radical idea - let's all agree that the government has had a long history of attempting to limit civil liberties, and has done so on many occasions (worst example - Japanese internment camps, second worst - McCarthy blacklists). Therefore the blame game is not helpful.

Let's also agree that when the government says they have the power to lock up any American citizen classified as an "enemy combatant" and detain them as long as they want, with no access to constitutional protections, that's pretty scary. What's scarier is that most people I talk to negate the importance of this argument, apparently in blind faith that our government would never lock up anyone that didn't "deserve" it.

I have absolutely no problem with the government detaining individuals who have been proven or are known to be enemies of the US (I am thinking particularly of the guy captured in Afghanistan that was born in Louisiana), even if they are citizens, but there must be limits, and the courts must have the right to question the government's actions. As a gay man in the land of Ashcroft, I am NOT comfortable with such a power being completely unchecked by one of the other branches of our government. That is the wisdom and beauty behind our system of government.

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: CPT_Doom ]

I see your cause-and-effect point, '65, and have edited the above post rather than argue at length that popular nationalistic groupthink is the end-result of government-media A Waving Flag on Every TV Network Logo saturation...

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
I see your cause-and-effect point, '65, and have edited the above post rather than argue at length that popular nationalistic groupthink is the end-result of government-media A Waving Flag on Every TV Network Logo saturation...

---

I won! I WON!!!! Ha-ha, just kidding, Bill.

Since you gave a little ground, I will concede that I do believe Ashcroft and the Bushies are not being as respectful as they might be of civil liberties as they fight the war against terror, and I do oppose some of law enforcement's rather heavy-handed tactics. For what it's worth, I'm generally skeptical of law enforcement anyway, for as honorable as we conservatives like to think policemen are, they are at the day's end government agents with a disproportionate amount of power, i.e. if a cop wants to totally screw you for no good reason he probably can (though I know Copman, for instance, would never do such a thing).

This whole "war on terror" thing is a fine line, obviously. While we want to protect individual rights and be as tolerant as possible, we cannot ignore the fact that the terrorists who killed 3,000 people exploited our liberties and our tolerance to commit their crimes. What to do? Hell if I know.

However, I do not think the problem is as grave as the left makes it out to be, and I think the left in fact weakens its case by going into hysterics over our allegedly lost liberties, just as the right missed a billion opportunities in the Clinton Era by being so shrill and alarmist about the decline of civilization he was bringing about. Hope some of this makes sense, I'm just sorta rambling.

[quote]Just as the right missed a billion opportunities in the Clinton Era by being so shrill and alarmist about the decline of civilization he was bringing about

---

*Thunk* [JA faints by actually seeing someone from the right admit this]

To an outsider reading some of these threads, it seems to me that the left v right division is pretty strong in America at the moment, with very little mutual respect. You seem to regard those on the other side as just plain stupid for holding the views they do.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:

I think the left in fact weakens its case by going into hysterics over our allegedly lost liberties, just as the right missed a billion opportunities in the Clinton Era by being so shrill and alarmist about the decline of civilization he was bringing about.

---

"allegedly lost liberties" vs. "decline of civilization". Heh.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
publisher Janis Besler Heaphy wanted to tell graduates at California State University when she was invited to give a commencement address last December. "The Constitution makes it our right to challenge government policies," she said. "Our culture makes it our duty. Raising issues. Asking questions. Debating options." But the students didn't hear her. They drowned her out and drove her from the stage with their patriotic shouting."
But weren't these students, through their protest, merely exercising their freedom of speech and expression? Should they have been silenced?

---

As far as I am concerned she has a right to say her piece without being drowned out-- (Even though I think she is a goof) Then when she is completed I can give my opinion on her in a suitable forum , paper, speech or whatever. I don't think MY right to have free speech should take away her's.) whether I agree with her or not.) I don't have to drown out anyone else. If my ideas are the best (and I believe that they are) then I don't need to stifle anyone else's ideas because mine will be shown to be obviously better. And I may just learn something along the way !

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: copman ]

[quote]Originally posted by copman:


As far as I am concerned she has a right to say her piece without being drowned out-- (Even though I think she is a goof) Then when she is completed I can give my opinion on her in a suitable forum , paper, speech or whatever. I don't think MY right to have free speech should take away her's.) whether I agree with her or not.) I don't have to drown out anyone else. If my ideas are the best (and I believe that they are) then I don't need to stifle anyone else's ideas because mine will be shown to be obviously better. And I may just learn something along the way !

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: copman ]

---

But Copman, allowing her to speak before speaking back, so to speak, is the polite thing to do. That doesn't mean the opposite is not also free speech and expression. I agree that in general people should not be interrupted. But I think interrupting someone is a form of free expression.

That's what's great about the internet. Best I can tell, you cannot shout anybody down online. Have you ever tried interrupting a fellow Outsports poster? It's impossible.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
"Some degree" is not what's guaranteed, Wm. Cuba has "some degree."

---

Actually, I think any free society must limit itself to just some degree of freedom. How many times have we heard the assertion, "People should have the right to live as they choose as long as they're not hurting anybody else"? That's only a degree of freedom, it's not total freedom, because in many cases my freedom ends where someone else's begins. I have the right to play my stereo, but government can make laws forbidding me to play my stereo at full blast at two in the morning if my neighbors are trying to sleep. Thus there's just a degree, though I think a substantial degree, of freedom there. Degrees of freedom are highly underrated.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
But I think interrupting someone is a form of free expression.

---

Thats why I am a "moderate conservative" and you are a far right-wing crazy nut. <---Smilies denote joking manner - not a personal attack..........AND I CAN'T HEAR YOU -NOW I'M YELLING TOO LOUD!!!!

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: copman ]

On Liberites vs Security:

My take is not that the Bush Administration will abuse power today or tomorrow or next year, but that over time we will find ourselves in a situation where liberty has waned unnoticed.

As leftist as I am, I do trust the current Administration even though the policies look pretty damn scary. I just don't see abuse on their agenda. But what about 5 years from now? 10? For the sake of the future, the stand for preserving liberties must occur now. The balance between security and liberty must not overreact or we open ourselves to liberty abuses later.

Secrecy kills liberty, but free information hinders security. Such is the burden for a free state.

Interesting enough, this was one of the major topics on NPR today. Some of the same discussion items as we are covering.

However, there was another aspect introduced that I had not heard about previously. Following our passage of the USA Patriot Act legislation, 57 other countries have passed nearly identical legislation limiting civil liberties and altering their criminal justice systems. The US has often led the human rights/civil liberties efforts around the world. Now that we are being more restrictive, the pressure is off other countries and there is a "ripple" effect.

The guest on the show was talking about how ironic it was that the 9/11 tragedies were a result of civil liberty/human rights issues in the world, and our response was to crack down and diminish our stand in these areas. In his opinion, this was not the best approach to addressing the situation.

Another tidbit that was interesting. If an Appeals Court in the US hears a case regarding a detainee and issues a determination that the detainee should be released, the DOJ (thanks to Mr. Ashcroft) can file an appeal and continue to hold that detainee indefinitely. In other words, the check and balance process of our judicial system can be subverted by the DOJ who must know far more than the wise men and women who sit on the bench in the Appellate system.

Just a couple of factual pieces of information for everyone to chew on a bit more.

[quote]Originally posted by charliecstl:
The guest on the show was talking about how ironic it was that the 9/11 tragedies were a result of civil liberty/human rights issues in the world . . .

---

How is this so, exactly? You say it as though it is just a statement of fact, which it is not. It's an argument, and not even a very good one. Perhaps the NRP talking head made this clear, I don't know. But it's not as though 9/11 was some sort of peasant revolt. Atta, et al were pretty much bored rich kids. And they certainly enjoyed certain rights here in America not available to most devout Muslims, i.e. the right to go to strip bars, etc.

But whatever. The U.S. is still freer than most any of those bass-ackwards Middle Eastern countries.

I find it exceptionally puzzling when someone who has the expertise to be invited onto a national news program is attacked because his expertise is not in line with others' opinions. I really don't think any of us (no offense to anyone) have the expertise necessary to be invited by NPR to come share our thoughts about this subject on national radio. This guest did have that expertise and was sharing it for all of us to consider and contemplate. I certainly am much more open to listening to him share his observations and knowledge, than listening to someone who dismisses him as a "talking head" just because their viewpoints are contrary.

I mean, do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to just denounce and dismiss someone's expertise because you don't like what they have to say? Isn't that basically what this whole thread is all about? Not being able to share contrary viewpoints and discuss them like mature adults who can all think for themselves?

His expert knowledge does actually make a lot of sense, if you spend a little bit of time thinking about the argument. While the 9/11 acts were all about terrorism and inflicting damage and fear, their eventuality started way back with a discrepancy between how the Taliban approaches civil liberties/human rights and how the US does. The basic foundation of the attacks was in leveraging these disparities to create enough propoganda and rhetoric to get your "bored, rich kids" to actually decide to kill themselves and several thousand people with them. Responding to their attacks by moving more (relatively) toward their end of the spectrum actually is pretty ironic. If you can look at this with any type of open mind.

I find it interesting that anytime someone brings factual information into these discussions that does not match other participants' viewpoints, it is immediately shot down as unworthy of consideration. I think it is far more worthy than just listening to our own self-centric rhetoric and thoughts. Perhaps if we actually discussed the merits more, we might find that everyone has the capacity to respect each other's views.

Copman, you got the conjugation wrong.
"I am a moderate conservative."
"You are a reactionary."
"He is a rabid right wing nut case."


Edited to clarify that in actuality I am a moderate liberal. You are a socialist. He is a pinko communist revolutionary.

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: jqueer ]

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: jqueer ]

[quote]Originally posted by charliecstl:
I find it exceptionally puzzling when someone who has the expertise to be invited onto a national news program is attacked because his expertise is not in line with others' opinions. I really don't think any of us (no offense to anyone) have the expertise necessary to be invited by NPR to come share our thoughts about this subject on national radio. This guest did have that expertise and was sharing it for all of us to consider and contemplate. I certainly am much more open to listening to him share his observations and knowledge, than listening to someone who dismisses him as a "talking head" just because their viewpoints are contrary.

---

Would you extend the same "he's an expert invited to speak by a national news medium so we should listen and take heed" kind of respect to the folks over at Fox news?

Just wondering.

Pi=3.14blahblahblah is a fact. That the word "Outsports" begins with the letter "O" is a fact. Interpretations of why the 9/11 attacks took place are just that, interpretations, and simply cannot be looked at as fact. Various theories might be based on facts, but they are interpretations of facts that might be interpreted other ways by other people. So why don't you just take your factual information and put it up on your favorite message board, Outsports, where it will be respected, though not necessarily blindly accepted as the indisputable edict of a revered expert. (How do you know I'm not an expert on something? How do you know I'm not in a green room right now killing time before I talk my talking head off on some national news show? Like they say on the Springeresque talk shows, Uh-uh. You don't know me. YOU don't know ME!!!!!!)

Also, why is this guy's opinion contrary? I'm disputing it. Why isn't my opinion contrary? It's contrary to what he's saying. Aren't all opinions contrary to something?

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
(How do you know I'm not an expert on something? How do you know I'm not in a green room right now killing time before I talk my talking head off on some national news show? Like they say on the Springeresque talk shows, Uh-uh. You don't know me. YOU don't know ME!!!!!!)

---

Talk to the hand!