Skip to main content

View Diary: Instapundit Makes Stuff Up Too (184 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why is that a problem? (none)
    Either e was speaking in his academic role, in which case it, or he wasn't, in which case, it isn't.

    What's your problem with that?

    "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

    by Armando on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 12:56:32 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I saw a TV interview (none)
      with the Governor of Colorado vs. Churchill's lawyer.  The Gov. was arguing out of both sides of his mouth: he claimed that yes, Churchill has the right to free speech BUT he should be fired.

      C's lawyer correctly pointed out that the right to free speech doesn't merely mean you can say whatever you want; it also means that you are protected from punishment (e.g. losing your job) resulting from what you say.

      You can't strip the 1st Amendment (or tenure protections) down to something like "you may say whatever you please, but do it while unemployed or in jail."  

      You're a lawyer, Armando.  Don't you see that as dangerous?

      •  Churchill's Lawyer (none)
        will take care of the legal arguments.  He doesn't need me for that.

        "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

        by Armando on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 01:09:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What about labels? (none)
          What about Dem's being...flip floppers, wishy washy, for free speech before they were against it.

          You seem worried about the 'America haters' label. But by leaving the Ward Churchill's of the world hung out to dry you ignore other 'label traps' they have waiting for you.

          An analogy that might apply...

          This is like people who think women have the right to 'choice' but aren't willing to stand up for doctors that perform abortions because the right labels them baby killers and you worry that by defending abortion providers the label might stick them.

          •  Can't one keep a distance from the statements (none)
            without "hanging 'em out to dry"?
            •  The statements are a red herring. (none)
              If it was inflammatory, repugnant, and offensive language that was the crime Ward Churchill wouldn't be the only defendant.

              What we are talking about is the right to free speech and dissent.

              Do I have to distance myself from Anne Coulter's remarks about Arabs before I defend her right to speak?

              Is it assumed that anybody defending Coulter's right to speak automatically agrees with the content of her speech?

              If I agree with Churchill's content and agree with his right to say it do I hate America?

              Do I hate some Americans?

              Or do I have a very strong opinion regarding the complicity of some Americans in horrendous crimes?

              Perhaps Hate plays no part in these opinions.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site