Eric Posner: Free speech is overrated

[il Padrino Ute]

Which article are we talking about? I was focusing on the one you originally linked. That was the one you wanted to discuss.

Based on that article, it appears that you and Obama share the same stance.

are you now saying that the article you oringally linked is inaccurate? Or do you no longer wish to discuss that article and now want to talk about something else?

The article that Posner wrote was about free speech being overrated. I disagree with him about that and think he's a fool to believe that. Apparently, you think Obama believes in speaking freely about Islam in the piece written by Posner, yet the only time Obama is mentioned is when Posner pointed out that the White House wanted youtube to take down the video that, according to Obama, angered terrorists and caused them to attack a US embassy and a US consulate.

You then said that I sound like Obama, which is inaccurate.

I then posted another article that confirmed Obama's stance that we should kowtow to the terrorists because they might get angry about what we here in the US say about Islam.

Now, for a third time, please answer my question. Do you agree with Posner that free speech is overrated?

[Tim]

He recently wrote an article in the New Yorker that details what it was like to live under the early days of the fatwa. A fascinating tale. I got to hear him read, live, from Midnight's Children at USC back in 2009, and he was amazing.

His life is proof enough why we need absolute freedom of speech, and why we should defend those who become victims of people who hate that freedom.

I don't recall you traveling to California in 2009...

[Tim]

I then posted another article that confirmed Obama's stance that we should kowtow to the terrorists because they might get angry about what we here in the US say about Islam.

Except in his speech to the UN Obama stated the exact opposite of that. So your interpretation of what Obama believes is incorrect. Please issue a correction to your previous statements immediately. An apology to the President for intentionally misrepresenting his words and beliefs would also be welcome.

[TripletDaddy]

The article that Posner wrote was about free speech being overrated. I disagree with him about that and think he's a fool to believe that. Apparently, you think Obama believes in speaking freely about Islam in the piece written by Posner, yet the only time Obama is mentioned is when Posner pointed out that the White House wanted youtube to take down the video that, according to Obama, angered terrorists and caused them to attack a US embassy and a US consulate.

I must have missed that in the article you linked. Can you point it out?

[All-American]

The article that Posner wrote was about free speech being overrated. I disagree with him about that and think he's a fool to believe that. Apparently, you think Obama believes in speaking freely about Islam in the piece written by Posner, yet the only time Obama is mentioned is when Posner pointed out that the White House wanted youtube to take down the video that, according to Obama, angered terrorists and caused them to attack a US embassy and a US consulate.

You then said that I sound like Obama, which is inaccurate.

I then posted another article that confirmed Obama's stance that we should kowtow to the terrorists because they might get angry about what we here in the US say about Islam.

Now, for a third time, please answer my question. Do you agree with Posner that free speech is overrated?

Does Posner himself actually say that free speech is overvalued? I know the tagline says so, but if we learned anything from Romney's op-ed on the Detroit auto companies, it's that the author doesn't always write the headlines. The article itself focuses more on the way the rest of the world looks at the First Amendment.

[il Padrino Ute]

Except in his speech to the UN Obama stated the exact opposite of that. So your interpretation of what Obama believes is incorrect. Please issue a correction to your previous statements immediately. An apology to the President for intentionally misrepresenting his words and beliefs would also be welcome.

Really, Tim? Then what do you make of these words?

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

[il Padrino Ute]

I must have missed that in the article you linked. Can you point it out?

Read the Posner piece and find it yourself.

[il Padrino Ute]

Does Posner himself actually say that free speech is overvalued? I know the tagline says so, but if we learned anything from Romney's op-ed on the Detroit auto companies, it's that the author doesn't always write the headlines. The article itself focuses more on the way the rest of the world looks at the First Amendment.

That's what I got out of it when I read his piece. What did you get from it?

[Tim]

Really, Tim? Then what do you make of these words?

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Wow, what a hack job you did on that one, IPU! You only quoted a small portion of what he said! What's your problem?

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

Seems pretty damn clear: Everyone should grow the hell up and start being respectful of not only everyone's beliefs but also their differences.

[All-American]

That's what I got out of it when I read his piece. What did you get from it?

A point that, to the rest of the world, the pedestal on which we place the First Amendment must seem very odd.

Note that the word "value" only appears three times in the article, and never in connection with the qualifying "over". Once, he notes that the First Amendment's free speech rights must yield to other values (which you also acknowledge). Next, he points out that our First Amendment values are not universal. Finally, he claims that the video sparking this controversy is universally acknowledged to be without value. (I actually take some issue with that last point, not because I think there is value to the video-- which I haven't seen, thanks to Google-- but because I would rather not have the government placing itself in the role of the arbitrer of value in speech, if it can be avoided.)

I don't think he's saying we need to change our standards to conform with those of the rest of the world. I think he's saing that we should recognize the differences in the standards if we are going to make any progress in furthering the international dialogue.

[All-American]

Wow, what a hack job you did on that one, IPU! You only quoted a small portion of what he said! What's your problem?



Seems pretty damn clear: Everyone should grow the hell up and start being respectful of not only everyone's beliefs but also their differences.

Matt Stone and Trey Parker, you're on notice.

[Tim]

IPU, what do you make of this quote?

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

[All-American]

IPU, what do you make of this quote?

It's a great little quote, isn't it? I wish it had been his first word on the matter. I wish it had been his last word on the matter.

[il Padrino Ute]

Wow, what a hack job you did on that one, IPU! You only quoted a small portion of what he said! What's your problem?



Seems pretty damn clear: Everyone should grow the hell up and start being respectful of not only everyone's beliefs but also their differences.

In other words, don't say something that someone else might not like to hear.

Sorry Tim, that's not free speech. That is appeasement and that's what Obama is all about. What's your problem with free speech?

[il Padrino Ute]

IPU, what do you make of this quote?

That's Obama trying to backpedal his way out of the fact that he wanted youtube to take the video off it's site.

What do you make of it?