Friday Cable News Links and Open Thread
Thursday's numbers: Bill-Beck-Hannity 1-2-3.
Swells swarm to NLGJA benefit.
Why Andy quit Alan (video). Puffery for Joe.
Twitter silence: day 58. Rivers repatriated.
Scientology targets Coop? The new Larry King?
Q&A: John King. Oh Cisco. Hotline after dark.
Updated through the day. Use our valuable bandwidth to post your cable news comments in today's open thread. fox news cable
Blackflon
Two questions.
Isn't Bill Maher a political satirist?
Isn't Ann Coulter a political satirist?
Now, what is the differnce between these two?
Well, one flies under the radar for his so called "hate" remarks and the other has the News Hounds and Rick Sanchez with their panties in a wad over her so called "hate" remarks.
Ann Coulter on The O'Reilly Factor: "If All Muslims Would Boycott Airlines We Could Dispense With Airline Security Altogether"Reported by Julie - Fri 12:18 AM
Of course our wonderful Julie believes The Huffington Post is the true source of all things Coulter.
March 26, 2010, 8:58:29 AM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
Uhhhhhhh......that was 3 questions.
March 26, 2010, 9:53:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Blackflon
I hadn't had my coffe yet
March 26, 2010, 12:01:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
First of all, I take issue with the notion that Ann Coulter is a "political satirist." She's a political pundit, not a comedienne. And I defy anyone on this site to defend Ann Coulter's words. (By the way, both conservatives and libs blog at HuffPo; it's probably as "fair and balanced" as you're gonna get on the net.) Again, if you have reason to believe that the FACTS I attributed to HuffPo in my post are erroneous, by all means let me know.
March 26, 2010, 11:02:28 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
I won't defend what Coulter said, but I will repeat the no American should comfortable with Canadian speech laws to the point where they can blithely state the facts of her being threatened with them, without adding that they fly in the face of our Constitutional rights.
Frankly, I don't see a whole lot of difference with demanding that those in the "rightwing" denounce the violence of crazies as though they are part and parcel with us, from suggesting that Muslim terrorists are part and parcel with all Muslims.
If you feel that as a conservative, I should be doing mea culpas for violent idiots who happen to agree with me on a political issue, then why would you not feel that Coulter was logical in her sense that all Muslims bear the responsibility for some sort of collective image?
March 26, 2010, 11:32:23 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Canada's version of free speech is clearly not limitless -- ours, actually, isn't either, but we're looser. Given Coulter's history for bigotry, it makes perfect sense to me that the university would choose to head off at the pass any plans she might have to whip up racial tensions. I feel they were fully justified in what they did. As far as her "logic" about Muslims and airports . . . hasn't she ever heard of drug dealers? Who are not Muslim?
March 26, 2010, 11:42:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Everyone knows about slander, libel, and yelling fire in a crowded room...
Coulter does make a valid point that in both Canadian and American universities, respectful silence would greet any Muslim woman in a burka who whipped up gender antipathy.... by denouncing their libertine western female counterparts or even lesbianism. She certainly wouldn't have been threatened with the implication of jail.
I used the term "logical" as it applied to Coulter, in the sense that her conclusion that Muslims bear a collective responsibility for their image, is the logical corollary to the one that suggests conservatives bear responsibility for any health care opponent nut case.
March 26, 2010, 11:59:53 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I agree they had a right to give her a heads-up on their rules and regs, given her history -- I would tend to agree with you, however, about the threat of jail. In my opinion, the option is let her speak civilly or not let her speak at all, and remove her if she breaches the rules. Jail seems a little extreme, even to me!
March 26, 2010, 12:37:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
My agreement lies with the Candian Association of University Teachers who say,
'"We feel you [Houle] owe an apology to Ms. Coulter and, even more importantly, you owe the University of Ottawa community an assurance that the administration of the university strongly supports freedom of expression, academic freedom and views the role of the university as fostering and defending these values," officials with the Canadian Association of University Teachers said this week in a letter to Mr. Houle.'
and
"The association, while claiming to "profoundly disagree" with Ms. Coulter's views, said the "disturbing questions and provocative challenges" she raises should be welcomed and subjected to "vigorous debate."'
http://tinyurl.com/yafxdlv
March 26, 2010, 12:46:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Targeted comments against a specific minority group, including gays, is not "vigorous debate." It's hate speech. Coulter doesn't know the difference -- the university was right to give her a warning. The point has been made that people didn't have to come see her speak; by the same token, if she didn't think she could abide by the rules, she shouldn't speak. I'm all about free speech -- hate speech, something Coulter practices, is something altogether different.
March 26, 2010, 2:23:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Actually, what you consider to be "hateful" speech, can very well denote concepts that can be debated.
Racial profiling at airports is a debatable subject. The right to marry someone of the same sex and to adopt children is a arguable topic.
Ann gave the usual superflously negative (the worst way to be negative, really) statement about Muslims and airports. However, had she said something similar about "rightwingers" or Christian fundamentalists in light of the recent political violence, it would have been seen as the throw away line that she meant the Muslim comment to be.
March 26, 2010, 5:44:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Blackflon
Julie, OK, so Coulter is a Pundit/Satirist. Who's to say she's not? So she offends a few people? It's all comedy to me. No different than Maher or others. People who are offended by that kind of humor need to get a life.
I'll defend her all day long. I see no hate in her. She just has a different way of expressing her outrage at waht goes on in today's world. No one is going to die. No one is harmed. Unless you consider being "offended" harmed.
Too many whiners in the world.
March 26, 2010, 12:01:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
I don't have any trouble with Coulter being heckled or protested. If you are a speaker and you say things in a way that you know is controversial and likely to piss people off, then you should be aware that they are going to protest and heckle you...
What amazes me is are Americans not being more appalled over someone being threatened with incarceration (the natural progression of punishment for a criminal action) for controversial speech.
Here's to the Canadian Association of University Teachers for condemning the University of Ottawa provost's letter to Coulter!
March 26, 2010, 12:20:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Hard to imagine anyone could not see hate in Coulter, but that's just me . . . I'm not sure why you would use the term "whiners" when referring to people who don't like hate speech and don't like bigots. You want whiners, I've got a whole list for ya . . . .
March 26, 2010, 12:39:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Blackflon
Julie, I guess we'll just have to disagree on the Coulter issue.
I think the whole hate speech thing is a joke. Call it what it is. Bad behavior and don't be prosecuting someone's thoughts.
March 26, 2010, 3:32:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Blackflon: We can disagree . . . but thoughts tied to action is different than thoughts alone. I'm sure we can at least agree on that.
March 26, 2010, 8:38:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Blackflon: But thanks for reading my posts . . . .
March 26, 2010, 11:04:36 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Blackflon
No problem. Sometimes you actually make sense.
March 26, 2010, 3:33:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
Whoa!!! Let's not go overboard!
March 26, 2010, 5:25:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Blackflon - thank you! Ramjet - so much for the coffee date.
March 26, 2010, 8:38:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
I thought I asked you on a coffee date...
March 26, 2010, 8:54:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Gettin' confused . . . you're all so damn charming. Well, you're still in good standing . . . .
March 26, 2010, 9:04:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Guest
Cecelia
Well, do you I have to ask you out to be charming too?
March 26, 2010, 9:10:40 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
You don't even have to ask CC, I'm all yours!
March 26, 2010, 9:13:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Cecilia, of course that comment included you. You have been the most charming of all. (And by the way, when Fox Fan suggested coffee or a beer, he included you in the invitation . . . .)
March 26, 2010, 9:15:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
Sounds like we're on. It's just me and two smart, beautiful women!
March 26, 2010, 9:16:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
You're on your own. No pointers from me, dude...
March 26, 2010, 9:19:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
That's because he wants me to pay...
March 26, 2010, 9:18:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
Shot down by CC again.
Julie and I will have a great time at the coffee shop and then going to a tea party while open-carrying our loaded AKs and ARs.
March 26, 2010, 9:21:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
You sure know how to show a girl a good time, FF...
In the meantime MIke and I are going to go out, listen to cool jazz, and I'm going to show him some shoes I have that are as old as he probably is...
March 26, 2010, 9:33:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
Oh yeah? I'm going to take Julie to a Furry party after we shoot up some varmints and then we're going to play twister in our Furry outfits.
Have fun with Mike.
March 26, 2010, 9:37:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Somebody better warn Julie that your furry animal will be the "naked ape".
March 26, 2010, 9:45:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
No, I'm Snarf from the Thudercats!
March 26, 2010, 10:02:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Ran out for Dunkin' Donuts and missed all the fun stuff . . . I am not going to ask what a "Furry party" is. I do, however, know what Twister is.
March 26, 2010, 10:13:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Chris
this is a smart move for Cisco/MSNBC. They already use the "telepresence" with the Fox show "24". I've seen this technology in person and it's pretty cool.
March 26, 2010, 10:09:54 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
I do wonder how any American could feel that it was the slightest bit justified for any party to be threatened with criminal charges in reference to what is considered free speech in this country.
To me, that Candian law is truly the legal codification of the mindset that we've lately seen in the actions against certain politicians of both parties.
March 26, 2010, 10:34:40 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Blackflon
Cecelia, even here in the US there are some hate crime laws. In my opinion they are simply thought crimes and should be abolished.
March 26, 2010, 12:04:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
I agree Blackflon, however, you have to go to institutions of higher learning to find policies that penalize speech...
March 26, 2010, 12:07:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
OK, so Coulter is a Pundit/Satirist
======
The whole idea of Coulter as a satirist never quite seemed real to me. The primary reason is that I've never (and it is possible i've missed it) seen her doing anyhting that indicates she is joking, nothing that lets the audience in on the fact that she is kidding. No smile, no eyes twinkling in merryment. Again, I suppose I could have missed it.
With someone like Bill Maher for instance, Who does say inflamatory things (although I tend to agree with him), I see signs that, he is, just effing with the oppositon. Kind of like a merry prankster. It's the little giggle after he says something that he knows will get the goat of those on the right wing.
Don't get me wrong though. I'm not saying Maher is alwas kidding. At times he is on the attack and his goal is not comedy, and I'm also not saying I begrudge someone for being offended by Mahers's comedy even when he is playing.
My primary point is: since I don't see signs that Coulter is trying to be funny, in my mind she is purely a pundit for the right.
Dennis Miller on the other hand is different story.
March 26, 2010, 1:33:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I firmly state that Coulter is not a satirist -- her rhetoric is clearly designed to target specific groups, and she clearly uses hate speech to accomplish it. She's welcome in certain venues, like among the tea party-goers. For all these people talking about free speech and expression, why malign the freedom of universities that don't welcome her rhetoric? Don't they have the freedom to choose the type of expression they engage in?
March 26, 2010, 2:26:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Coulter was invited by the university to speak! The provost took it upon himself to threaten legal charges.
March 26, 2010, 5:18:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
A former VP of Iran is arrested for protesting agains political arrests.
Alan Colmes tells Megyn that Eric Cantor is politicizing threats of violence against Congresscritters by speaking out against politicizing threats of violence against Congresscritters.
Demonstrating for the purpose of preventing a controversial author and lecturer from speaking at a university is not considered controversial.
There's no shortage of satire in this whacky world and Ms. Coulter is the long ball champion.
March 26, 2010, 2:49:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
Let me try this again:
Cecelia, even here in the US there are some hate crime laws. In my opinion they are simply thought crimes and should be abolished.
<img src="http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/stars/admin-comment.png" title="This user is an administrator"/> Cecelia<img src="http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/icon10-external-url.png"/>
I agree Blackflon, however, you have to go to institutions of higher learning to find policies that penalize speech...
---------------------------------------------
I actually disagree with my liberal brethern on hate crime laws and feel it is actions that should be penalized. Meaning if a man is socked in the nose by a bigot who hates homesexuals, in my opinion that bigot shuld be charged with assault. That is the actual crime. The crime in my opnion is not hating Homosexuals.As for universites, I certianly think it is fair for Universites to have polices regarding hate. Just like I think they should exist in the workplace. I can't for instance come in to work and call a black co-worker the N-word, every day and expect to keep my job. A university has the same right to set policy regarding hate.As for Coulter: The Provost had no authority to "criminally prosecute" her. The letter was intended to advise her, for her own sake, of what the Charter actually said and where she might be vulnerable. Given her history of mockeing gays and muslims, she could have gotten herself into trouble with Candaian authorites. Not with the university.
March 26, 2010, 1:49:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Hate crimes differ from other crimes -- if you assault someone, it's a crime, for whatever reason. However, if you assault someone solely because he or she is among a minority group you don't like, you've elevated your crime to a hate crime. The likelihood that you'll repeat the crime at another time is high, simply because that person did nothing except exist as a person in a group you don't like. I feel the laws are necessary. Nobody wants Matthew Shepherd type crimes in this country.
March 26, 2010, 2:29:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Schnizzle, anyone has the "legal authority" to press charges against someone for a legal infraction.
THe charges may not stand, but you can certainly press them.
March 26, 2010, 5:23:40 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Any institution has the right to demand civil conduct from its participants.
We're talking a code that goes beyond punitive measures for uncivil behavior, into special penalties against certain thoughts/positions, as reflected in certain terms/words.
March 26, 2010, 5:34:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Tony
If she was in Alaska and told them to ride a "Dogsled" would it still be considered hate speach? No, it would not. The more Ann pisses off the leftists the more I like her.
March 26, 2010, 2:48:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
Outside of Ann appearing on "The O'Reilly Factor," and this topic being discussed on there, what does all this have to with cable news?
I'll answer my question: nothing. It's just ideological cornertaking that gets us nowhere other than making the dissenters feel good.
March 26, 2010, 3:04:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Fair point. We are getting off track when we start debating the wisdom of hate crime laws, so we really should keep the discussion more focused.
March 26, 2010, 3:14:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Fine -- let's, then, talk about why Fox defends Ann Coulter's hate rhetoric but has Rosie O'Donnell all over its airwaves -- and not portrayed positively -- because of some things she's said they don't agree with.
March 26, 2010, 3:22:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Blackflon
Julie, maybe because they don't agree with your conclusions about Coulter.
All over the airwaves? Everyone hide!! Rosie's back! (that's called humor for those of you from Chicago).
March 26, 2010, 3:43:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Don't you know those of us from Chicago don't have a sense of humor?
But . . . Chicago is (despite its old aldermanic tricks and corruption) a city of reasonable rhetoric. And I expect it. Anyone who doesn't believe that Ann Coulter makes a living on hate speech isn't paying attention to either her words or her balance sheet. It's what she does. And I couldn't care less about Rosie O'Donnell, and I'm not even debating what Coulter says . . . just don't try to tell me Fox allows and encourages that whole "free speech" thing from everyone. It doesn't.
March 26, 2010, 4:40:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Blackflon
I don't believe I have ever heard anyone on Fox say that O'Donnell should be shut down. They may have said that her remarks are ignorant and beyond the pale but I am not aware of anyone denying her freedom to speak.
March 26, 2010, 5:56:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
O'Reilly advocated for her to be fired from The View, though. I found that in a quickie google search.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262669,00.html
March 26, 2010, 7:12:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnnydollar
I don't see in there where he calls for Rosie to be fired. Am I missing something?
March 26, 2010, 7:47:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Yeah, actually, I think you did.
"The question is what should ABC do? Remember ABC fired Bill Maher after he said the 9/11 killers had courage. . . She has no right to do that, Jane. She has no right to be this irresponsible. And ABC has got to be held accountable for her . . . Do you take her off, Bernie?" That sounds like advocacy to me.
March 26, 2010, 7:51:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnnydollar
Do you take her off Bernie is a question. ABC has got to be held accountable means what, she has to be fired? How about held accountable by apologizing to the insulted families? Or giving Rosie a talking-to? Or setting parameters for her discussions? There are a whole lot of things they can do short of firing her and still be held accountable. I don't see him saying "fire her" anywhere in that discussion.
March 26, 2010, 7:56:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I noticed you elected not to comment on the "remember bill maher was fired . . . " comment. You're reaching on this -- he was completely advocating for her to be taken off, without saying it in so many words . . . which is why I post at News Hounds, because that's what Fox does best.
March 26, 2010, 7:58:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnnydollar
Remember Maher was fired? That means he wants to fire O'Donnell? Look, you may be right that he wanted Rosie fired. But that's your opinion, based on 'words that work' or whatever. He doesn't say fire her. He left that for his two guests to address. You may consider that a fine point but I'm the sort of guy who writes entire articles about a misplaced comma (according to a certain Queen bee) so you have to expect that from me!
"that's what Fox does best"
I love it when people cite an analysis/opinion program to represent all of "Fox". I always wonder when I hear "Fox" does this and "Fox" does that, as if there was a press conference and the Articles of Incorporation stepped up to the microphone and read a statement. Rather imprecise language I'd say.
March 26, 2010, 8:04:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I said "advocated for," not "called for" . . . and, Mr. Wordsmith, there is a distinction. If it's really important to you, now that you've thrown down the gauntlet, I'm certain I can find other examples of Fox targeting Rosie O'Donnell. Since we're splitting it so fine here, let me say that your generality, that "people cite an analysis/opinion program to represent all of 'Fox''', is erroneous on its face. My comment, "that's what Fox does best," is true, in my opinion -- but nowhere did I say that I believe that because O'Reilly advocated for O'Donnell's firing. Rather imprecise analysis, I'd say.
March 26, 2010, 8:27:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnnydollar
"nowhere did I say that I believe that because O'Reilly advocated for O'Donnell's firing."
I didn't accuse you of that, but thanks for rushing to defend yourself!
"I said "advocated for," not "called for" . . ."
yeah well you can nitpick as well as I can. But advocate means to push for something, and I didn't see him at any point pushing for Rosie to be fired. But let it be as you say.
March 26, 2010, 8:31:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Yes, I can nitpick -- but not as well as you can.
March 26, 2010, 8:35:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
While we're being all precise and all:
"advocate" -
recommend: push for something; "The travel agent recommended strongly that we not travel on Thanksgiving Day" a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea preach: speak, plead, or argue in favor of; "The doctor advocated a smoking ban in the entire house" a lawyer who pleads cases in court
March 26, 2010, 8:30:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
John T accused me of nitpicking over a comma. I told him I hadn't (It was quotation marks). I asked him to provide evidence or please retract. He then accused me of always asking for an apology. I told him I hadn't (evidence or please retract). Then he accused me of lying. What could I do? He had me! If I denied it, he'd just demand proof. I think that was the night I got banned for life on the wide-open, anything goes except quoting Ellen OT Forum.
March 26, 2010, 8:35:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
What I've learned is that it's hard -- impossible, almost -- to prove a negative. Trying to do that seems to turn debate on its head and it then becomes just nonsense. It's like arguing with a drunk . . . waste of time and energy, accomplishes nothing.
March 26, 2010, 8:40:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
So FNC is saying that Rosie should be prosecuted for being a truther?
March 26, 2010, 5:27:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
I tried to do the right thing and rein in the cornertaking, and I failed. I guess I'll go back to keeping my mouth shut and letting chaos reign (different spelling).
March 26, 2010, 6:37:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Well, Cecilia, O'Reilly at least advocated for her to be fired, at least, back in the day. I think that's similar to a stifling of free speech, wouldn't you? Of course, O'Reilly isn't the only one who has targeted her in the past. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Rosie O'Donnell fan, but I am noting the bias.
March 26, 2010, 7:13:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
So now you're suggesting that being fired for not being a good reflection of your company is the same as if a Canadian tv station threatened to bring charges against a guest on one of their own tv shows?
I have no problem with companies firing employees that they have they hired ( in this case to garner rating for a tv show) when they say something that may be so out of the mainstream that it alienates their customers or perhaps just impedes their philosophy.
In the case of universities with guest speakers, we're talking about an outsider invited into a formalized academic setting to voice their particular ideas, opinions, etc. It's like Oral Roberts University inviting Richard Dawkin to speak and then telling him to steer away from any criticism of Intelligent Design!
The university does have the authority to do that with one of their teachers, but even then it must be done within the bounds of structures contrived for such purposes. It is a little but an exercise in censorship when it is done to an invited guest, there to expound upon what they "know" for the discussion, debate, and general discourse of the university.
March 26, 2010, 8:34:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
"I think that's similar to a stifling of free speech, wouldn't you? "JD
Nope. Advocating for someone to be fired is an expression of free speech, which is protected from Congress making any law abridging that, as well as other, 1st Amendment rights.
Stiffling free speech is a violation of one's civil rights, depending upon the effectiveness of the stiffler.
Shooshing, on the the other hand, is a time honored tradition in this, the greatest country on planet earth, and many have worked and studied their little tuchas off to gain Official Shoosher status.
March 26, 2010, 8:51:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
It appears to me that O'Reilly's expression of free speech sought to squelch that of Rosie O'Donnell.
March 26, 2010, 8:54:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
So tomorrow if you wrote in your column that Rosie shouldn't be given a radio show, you'd be squelching her speech?
March 26, 2010, 9:05:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Yes, I believe that. I tend to debate the wordplay of pundits, but I am going to say, 99.9% sure, that I've never advocated for anyone to be fired for what they say. I've never said O'Reilly should be taken off the air, or Hannity, or Beck . . . I don't believe they should. They all have their place, and it's up to us who disagree to make our feeling known, not to try to knock out all our dissenters.
March 26, 2010, 9:10:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
I like your statement and concur with it, though I don't think that suggesting that someone has given their employer grounds for firing is the same as actually advocating it (even if it's stated on national tv).
March 26, 2010, 9:16:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnnydollar
Isn't there some group trying to get Glenn Beck fired? I may be wrong about this, but I thought I heard something about a boycott with the purpose of getting Beck off the air. And isn't there a doghouse somewhere cheering on the people who want Beck fired? I've probably got this all wrong so please feel free to correct me.
March 26, 2010, 8:54:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I believe that there is a group who is trying to get Beck off the air -- and I think you're right that N/H promoted it. I questioned Ellen about it, as I recall, because we don't normally advocate boycotts. I, personally, never do. All's fair (barring violence, of course) in love and political debate.
March 26, 2010, 9:06:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Well, they clearly don't like that about her. That's quite a sin, being anti-Bush, on Fox.
March 26, 2010, 8:30:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Well, just ten "Hail, Murdochs" and a "bless me, Roger, I have sinned" make it all right again.
March 26, 2010, 8:52:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
I guess Alan Colmes, Bob Beckel, Kirsten Powers, Mara Liasson, Ellen Ratner, Ellis Henican, Douglas Kennedy, Bill Schulz, etc. are all sinners.
March 26, 2010, 9:58:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
Hate crimes differ from other crimes -- if you assault someone, it's a crime, for whatever reason. However, if you assault someone solely because he or she is among a minority group you don't like, you've elevated your crime to a hate crime. The likelihood that you'll repeat the crime at another time is high, simply because that person did nothing except exist as a person in a group you don't like. I feel the laws are necessary. Nobody wants Matthew Shepherd type crimes in this country.
====================
I'm not sure I agree with that. Mathew Shepard was Robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, and left to die. In my opinion if Robbing, pistol whipping, torturing, and leaving someone die, doesn't warrent a harsh penalty (like life in prison or the death penalty.) then that needs to be looked at. The motivation for the crime is irrevelent. the harshenss of the penalty should be due to the heinous actions Shepard's Tormentors took.
I mean seriously, If Shepard's tormenters tortured him to death, not because they hated gays, but because they got their jollies off doing that to people in general, would they deserve a less harsh sentence because it's not a hate crime? I don't think so. Similarly If Shepards tormentors had simply teepeed his house, instead of torture and murder, and did it because he was gay, in my opion they'd be disgusting and foul human beings, but they only deserve a fine and community service because all they would have done was put toilet paper on his property.
What happend to Shepard was awful, it made me beyond sad, but I disagree with the idea of hate crime legislation.
March 26, 2010, 3:32:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
Fair point. We are getting off track when we start debating the wisdom of hate crime laws, so we really should keep the discussion more focused.
--------
This appeared after, I made my last post. I won't be offended if you remove it.
March 26, 2010, 3:39:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ash
Hate speech is whatever a left winger disagrees with someone politically. Therefore that Soviet style term really has no real meaning.
March 26, 2010, 4:46:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Ash, Matthew Shepherd's family might disagree with you.
March 26, 2010, 9:12:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Tony
Do you think that Shuster will tewwt about how they have dismissed all felony charges against O;Keef and wound up only a single amisdemeanor charge? Will Olbermann even mention it?
March 26, 2010, 5:40:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Right after Shuster tweets on ACORN dismantling and restructuring under a new name.
March 26, 2010, 5:49:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Tony
oops. Make that tweet, not tewwt.
March 26, 2010, 5:42:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
Hate speech is whatever a left winger disagrees with someone politically. Therefore that Soviet style term really has no real meaning
-------
Diplomatic and well thought out.
March 26, 2010, 5:51:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
Any institution has the right to demand civil conduct from its participants.
We're talking a code that goes beyond punitive measures for uncivil behavior, into special penalties against certain thoughts/positions, as reflected in certain terms/words
-------
Right, but this is a distinction between how Canda views speech versus how the United States views it. It has little to do with the university. If I pointed out to foreign friend that it is a crime to make a joke about bombs at an airport, I'm not threatning him with an arrest I can't make, I'm telling him he could get into legal trouble if he makes that joke.
March 26, 2010, 5:55:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Actually, it has everything to do with university if they lodge a complaint.
If you pointed out something to someone you describe as friend it can be deduced that you are giving sound advice for his/her benefit.
If you are warning someone you do not like to behave themselves or face repercussions, that can be deduced as a threat to press charges.
March 26, 2010, 6:04:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
Actually, it has everything to do with university if they lodge a complaint.
If you pointed out something to someone you describe as friend it can be deduced that you are giving sound advice for his/her benefit.
If you are warning someone you do not like to behave themselves or face repercussions, that can be deduced as a threat to press charges
----
But to my knowledge the university didn't lodge a complaint. Nor in my scanning of the letter, did i see a threat to lodge a complaint. I mean would you have been okay, if Coulter wasn't warned, did her schtick and had some offended student or audience member lodge a complaint leading to criminal trouble for her?
March 26, 2010, 6:09:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Or had some Provost lodged a complaint?... If it's not out of the realm of thought that an audience member (of an association of university conservatives...) would lodge an official complaints, it shouldn't be that tough to consider that a school official (the very man who warned her to mark her words) would do it.
In fact it is PRECISELY the natural conclusion and impetus of concern in a letter coming from someone in authority like this. If I get a warning from my homeowers association telling me that going into the woods behind my house and practicing with my Glock, is a county infraction, I'm completely certain that they plan to make sure I answer for that infraction.
BTW-- how could the university have lodged a complaint since Coulter canceled her speech.
March 26, 2010, 6:23:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
Actually, it has everything to do with university if they lodge a complaint.
If you pointed out something to someone you describe as friend it can be deduced that you are giving sound advice for his/her benefit.
If you are warning someone you do not like to behave themselves or face repercussions, that can be deduced as a threat to press charges
-------
Also, even if you were right about the threat (and I don't think you are.) Don't you think a university has the right to say under what terms a person is to speak? For example if the instituion we are speaking of invited Ahmadinejad and told him to not speak about the destruction of isreal wouldn't that also be thire right? It's their university.
March 26, 2010, 6:14:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Well, I doubt a university would have temerity to tell ("warn" if you will...) Ahmadinejad that he might be prosecuted for his speech...
Generally, speakers don't speak where they restricted as to topic, and the groups that invite them generally don't attempt such pressure.
March 26, 2010, 6:29:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
I apologize for the poor spelling and grammer. Being careless.
March 26, 2010, 6:15:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
Cecelia<img src="http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/icon10-external-url.png"/>
Well, I doubt a university would have temerity to tell ("warn" if you will...) Ahmadinejad that he might be prosecuted for his speech...
Generally, speakers don't speak where they restricted as to topic, and the groups that invite them generally don't attempt such pressure
====
IN this case The point I was making was the university's right to inform the speaker what is acceptable speech on their campus.
March 26, 2010, 6:48:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
"IN this case The point I was making was the university's right to inform the speaker what is acceptable speech on their campus."
Well, here is exactly where the difficulty and discrepancy lie.
A formalized speech by an invited speaker generally isn't the stuff of speech codes.
If I invite Pat Buchanan to speak, and he goes into his theories on how America should have not fought Germany in WWII, that the Europeans could have handled Hitler by themselves, that may be offensive to many people, but it's not the sort uncivil speech that happens in campus settings and that speech codes are meant to address.
An invited speaker is an entity outside the university, they don't represent it. They are invited there to give their point of view and the setting for that view is a formalized setting. It is an intellectual exercise steered by an outsider for the benefit, the intrique, the challenge of those in the audience.
To suggest that these speakers are no different from students are even teachers in the classroom, is sheer speciousness.
March 26, 2010, 8:03:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
Well, here is exactly where the difficulty and discrepancy lie.
A formalized speech by an invited speaker generally isn't the stuff of speech codes.
If I invite Pat Buchanan to speak, and he goes into his theories on how America should have not fought Germany in WWII, that the Europeans could have handled Hitler by themselves, that may be offensive to many people, but it's not the sort uncivil speech that happens in campus settings and that speech codes are meant to address.
An invited speaker is an entity outside the university, they don't represent it. They are invited there to give their point of view and the setting for that view is a formalized setting. It is an intellectual exercise steered by an outsider for the benefit, the intrique, the challenge of those in the audience.
To suggest that these speakers are no different from students are even teachers in the classroom, is sheer speciousness.
========================================
So you are saying that a university has no right to ask a speaker to limit the scope of their speech when the speaker is on university property? I disagree with that. I think a University has every right to do so and if the speaker is not okay with those conditions they are perfectly free to carry a sign and protest on the side walk outside the university.
However, I will agree that doesn't exacly foster the open exchange of ideas. I am pointing out what i think the universites rights are in the matter.
March 26, 2010, 8:38:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
Or had some Provost lodged a complaint?... If it's not out of the realm of thought that an audience member (of an association of university conservatives...) would lodge an official complaints, it shouldn't be that tough to consider that a school official (the very man who warned her to mark her words) would do it.
=====
It could be anybody which is the point of the warning. Coulter was informed she would be leaving herself open for legal action if she spoke about certian groups in a certain way. That is different than a threat. Again, informing someone of laws of which they may not be aware is different than threatning to personally enformce or see that those laws are enforced.
BTW-- how could the university have lodged a complaint since Coulter canceled her speech.
--------
They couldn't have of course. The point I was making was that there is no evidece that the university would have taken any action against Coulter if she spoke out. the only thing we have is that Coulter was informed of laws that she might not be aware of, laws that she should be aware of, given the nature of past speeches.
March 26, 2010, 6:53:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Why there's every indictation that the university would have taken action against her.
There's an official letter from a school administrator warning her that she can't behave as she does in American without risking legal censure and there's a defense of such policies within that discourse of that warning.
March 26, 2010, 8:07:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
indictation that the university would have taken action against her.
There's an official letter from a school administrator warning her that she can't behave as she does in American without risking legal censure and there's a defense of such policies within that discourse of that warning.
====================
Not at all. A letter that warns you are susceptible to something is not a letter threatening to carry it out. It means that should ANYONE choose to move against you, you will have given them legal grounds. An important distinction.
March 26, 2010, 8:32:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
I'd venture to say that had former Sec. Donald Rumsfeld written Cindy Sheehan that her war protests may make her suspectible to arrest (for deserving the peace, or blocking traffic, etc.), you'd have no difficulty discerning that the implicit threat in this warning is predicated PRECISELY upon the role and the interest of the party issuing the caution.
March 26, 2010, 8:41:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Mike, is there anyway we can discuss this without upsetting you?
I'm not quite sure what boundaries you want us to keep for this particular subject.
March 26, 2010, 8:49:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
Yeah, stick to what's happening in cable news, or anything related to today's links. Outside of Blackflon's NH link, we've gone way, way, way off topic. And no one is happier about that than the NHs, including the two that play a role here.
March 26, 2010, 11:41:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Who's the other one?
March 27, 2010, 1:23:23 AM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
I'd venture to say that had former Sec. Donald Rumsfeld written Cindy Sheehan that her war protests may make her suspectible to arrest (for deserving the peace, or blocking traffic, etc.), you'd have no difficulty discerning that the implicit threat in this warning is predicated PRECISELY upon the role and the interest of the party issuing the caution.
==================================
A more valid analogy would be if Sheehan was invited to say speak in my front yard about her war belifs and I wanred her not to wander from my yard to the street where she is susceptible to arrest.
March 26, 2010, 8:54:40 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
An even better one would be if *I warned her not to wander into *my yard because of tresspassing laws.
March 26, 2010, 8:59:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
An even better one would be if *I warned her not to wander into *my yard because of tresspassing laws.
==========
Well no, that would be a threat.
March 26, 2010, 9:03:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
How so? I may just be warning her that my husband may have her butt thrown in jail?...
March 26, 2010, 9:08:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
How so? I may just be warning her that my husband may have her butt thrown in jail?...
===========
Because she clearly was not invited to your lawn. Coulter was invited to speak and warned about the law of the land. It would be the equivalent of inviting Sheehan to your house, but saying your husband might have her "butt" thrown in jail if she starts breaking up any factor merchandise you own.
March 26, 2010, 9:15:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Coulter was invited by a conservative club on campus, not by the provost, (who has been asked to apologize by the Canadian Association of University teachers, by the way...)
No, my husband would kill her with his bare hands if she broke The Factor merchandise.
March 26, 2010, 9:26:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
Coulter was invited by a conservative club on campus, not by the provost, (who has been asked to apologize by the Canadian Association of University teachers, by the way...)
=========================
Well, that would certainly indicate the Canadian association of University teachers agree with you. But I still disagree. It doesn't seem like a threat to me. I take it more like a concert promoter warning a musician that his song "effyou" might be a bad idea in a particular state with strict obscenity laws. Not because the concert promoter cares, but because city council men might be present.
No, my husband would kill her with his bare hands if she broke The Factor merchandise.
==============
And really, who could blame him? Those are collecters items. That was pretty funny btw.
March 26, 2010, 9:37:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply
