Two comments from this Washington Post column by Turley:
"The Washington Post article by Jonathan Turley: I do not agree with him at all. Because I do not want a development where the West World Media Monopoly shall bombard the world with violations of other people's religions, race, culture and leaders. I understand Turleys position as an expression of the growing fact that the only value counting in USA, is money. In a society where no other values counts, meaning in reality is not considered about or estimated. We can speak whatever and as much as we want without anyone bothering. The only meaning that counts in such a society is the meaning of powerholders and celebrities. The world is not such a society and wo'nt become so before a long time yet. And I do not want such a world at all, allthough I would like very much the society to develop in a direction where humour, satire and sharp crticism taking care of the human dignity of the criticised is totally accepted. We all agree that wording cannot justify murder like the murders in the actions in Paris. We all agree that wording cannot justify murders at all. But in courts criminals get milder punishment, quite just, if wording has provoked them beyond bearable limits. So wording is not without grave dangers although Joanthan Turley pretend they are."
No. You want to live in a world of censorship driven by fear under the guise of feeling for others.
Another 'yeah but' angle.
And our satirical heritage has been developed over thousands of years asshole. Look up Horace and Juvenal. If you lived in Rome during those times you'd be offended by them too. Know why? Because you're an idiot.
"I agree. Sure, freedom of speech is a right, not a privilege, as Turley points out; but to keep our freedoms, we must use them wisely. When some in our society choose to endanger the rest through repeated provocation, leaders haven't much choice other than to make public admonitions about bad judgment--or worse yet, regulate it through law. Freedom isn't free, as they say, and it certainly is not absolute if we all desire peace."
They're gonna need a bigger helmet.
Nice. 'Use them wisely'. That's a new one. I bet you get to decide what's wise' or perhaps TOP MEN?
You mean like these top men:
"Canada even has an anti-blasphemy law on the books. It was last used in an attempted private prosecution against the distributors of the Monty Python movie Life of Brian in 1980."
Reasonable limits?
Preceding that came:
"And Canadians are certainly not Charlie. My guess is that an English-language version of Charlie Hebdo wouldn't last even a few days in Canada before concerned Muslim or Christian or Jewish citizens would be demanding charges be laid under Canada's hate-speech laws, or dragging the magazine before one of our provincial human rights commissions that specialize in rooting out offensive expression."
He's absolutely right. Canada believes it can set 'reasonable limits' on speech but don't be fooled by this nonsense.
Aside from the disgusting line of thinking, these people just don't get it. It won't sink in.
And how is it exactly our fault how deranged lunatic react to something?
What are these 'reasonable limits' exactly. Again, people get easily offended these days. So where does it begin and end to these clowns?
What's left to say except give these folks a coloring book and some crayons.
"The Washington Post article by Jonathan Turley: I do not agree with him at all. Because I do not want a development where the West World Media Monopoly shall bombard the world with violations of other people's religions, race, culture and leaders. I understand Turleys position as an expression of the growing fact that the only value counting in USA, is money. In a society where no other values counts, meaning in reality is not considered about or estimated. We can speak whatever and as much as we want without anyone bothering. The only meaning that counts in such a society is the meaning of powerholders and celebrities. The world is not such a society and wo'nt become so before a long time yet. And I do not want such a world at all, allthough I would like very much the society to develop in a direction where humour, satire and sharp crticism taking care of the human dignity of the criticised is totally accepted. We all agree that wording cannot justify murder like the murders in the actions in Paris. We all agree that wording cannot justify murders at all. But in courts criminals get milder punishment, quite just, if wording has provoked them beyond bearable limits. So wording is not without grave dangers although Joanthan Turley pretend they are."
No. You want to live in a world of censorship driven by fear under the guise of feeling for others.
Another 'yeah but' angle.
And our satirical heritage has been developed over thousands of years asshole. Look up Horace and Juvenal. If you lived in Rome during those times you'd be offended by them too. Know why? Because you're an idiot.
"I agree. Sure, freedom of speech is a right, not a privilege, as Turley points out; but to keep our freedoms, we must use them wisely. When some in our society choose to endanger the rest through repeated provocation, leaders haven't much choice other than to make public admonitions about bad judgment--or worse yet, regulate it through law. Freedom isn't free, as they say, and it certainly is not absolute if we all desire peace."
They're gonna need a bigger helmet.
Nice. 'Use them wisely'. That's a new one. I bet you get to decide what's wise' or perhaps TOP MEN?
You mean like these top men:
"Canada even has an anti-blasphemy law on the books. It was last used in an attempted private prosecution against the distributors of the Monty Python movie Life of Brian in 1980."
Reasonable limits?
Preceding that came:
"And Canadians are certainly not Charlie. My guess is that an English-language version of Charlie Hebdo wouldn't last even a few days in Canada before concerned Muslim or Christian or Jewish citizens would be demanding charges be laid under Canada's hate-speech laws, or dragging the magazine before one of our provincial human rights commissions that specialize in rooting out offensive expression."
He's absolutely right. Canada believes it can set 'reasonable limits' on speech but don't be fooled by this nonsense.
Aside from the disgusting line of thinking, these people just don't get it. It won't sink in.
And how is it exactly our fault how deranged lunatic react to something?
What are these 'reasonable limits' exactly. Again, people get easily offended these days. So where does it begin and end to these clowns?
What's left to say except give these folks a coloring book and some crayons.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.