Posted on 06/12/2009 1:03:03 PM PDT by Lorianne
If yesterday's Holocaust Museum slaying of security guard and national hero Stephen Tyrone Johns is not a clarion call for banning hate speech, I don't know what is. Playwright Janet Langhart Cohen appeared on CNN yesterday right after the shooting, as she wrote a play that was supposed to have been debuted at the Holocaust Museum last night. Her play is about Emmett Till, whose lynching helped launch the Civil Rights Movement, and Ann Frank, whose diary told the story of Holocaust victims in hiding in the Netherlands during World War II.
She said something must be done about ridding the Internet and the public dialogue of hate speech. I agree. Not only have we had three hate crime murders within the last two weeks (Mr. Johns, as noted above, Dr. George Tiller a week ago last Sunday, and Pvt. William Andrew Long by an American-born Muslim convert outside a recruiting station just before that.)
Now we have this quote from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who used to be President Obama's pastor. Hate comes from among all peoples and all religions. He said this about his lack of communication with Barack Obama since he's been elected president:
"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office," Wright told the Daily Press of Newport News following a Tuesday night sermon at the 95th annual Hampton University Ministers' Conference.
It's not enough to prosecute these murders as murders. They are hate-motivated crimes and each of these men had been under some sort of police surveillance prior to their actions. Isn't it time we started rounding up promoters of hate before they kill?
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
“Roundup the hate promoters.....” Start with Rev. Wright, Letterman and Michelle Obama. Second tier Schumer, Pelosi, Barney Frank and the homosexual lynch mob that destroyed the lovely and brave Ms. California.
Interesting that the hate promoters have not been rounded up after attacks on Christian Churches and Jewish airline counters.
“who,exactly,gets to determine what is hate speech and what isn’t?
Why,the government,of course—our impartial(snicker),tolerant(choke) government! Get ready for the gulags!
I would suggest that the demented idiot of the article read Ray Bradbury’s “Farenheit 451” - where anything “offensive” to anyone is banned.
I would first suggest that all her articles be banned first - since they are offensive to me ...but it then creates an interesting contradiction.
good point. who determines what is or is not hate speech?
To some people, stating that you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman is hate speech. Where the lines are to be drawn, and who draws them, is what makes the idea of rounding people up unsettling.
silly you..it doesn’t count if it’s offensive to you..you’re one of those conservatives so you need to take it..but if you dish it out to a liberal, beware..
They want to arrest Rev. Jeremiah Wright/
Well, what we ignore is that the left gets to define who are the “people.” If you’re not in their definition, no rights for you!
Let him speak. It's fun to use his words to poke the ears of my Liberal friends.
By all means the Rev should speak, often and loud.
Best way to know what an evil nasty turd this “Uncle” of Zero’s is...
Would Bonnie Erbe object to being locked up by those who consider her writings hate speech?
The real question about the Holocaust Museum shootings: what drove James von Brunn, by all accounts an intelligent man who served his country honorably in World War II, to this terrible end?
Don’t expect to read the answer — or even the question — in the mainstream media any time soon.
When a man dies defending others, in this case successfully, in my book that makes him a hero.-Sherman Logan
You make a very interesting point, Sherman. I hadn't thought of it that way.
So what’s your definition of a hero?
The term is tossed around promiscuously, but seldom defined.
BTW, I agree with you that we have tangled up the concepts of hero and victim to a disconcerting degree.
They are very different things. In fact, I think a true hero, whatever his fate, is never really a victim. He can be killed but not defeated.
I also think that someone who fights bravely to defend himself is not necessarily a hero. That can be just the survival instinct kicking in. Someone who voluntarily puts himself in harm’s way to protect others is my definition.
I also think that someone who fights bravely to defend himself is not necessarily a hero. That can be just the survival instinct kicking in. Someone who voluntarily puts himself in harm’s way to protect others is my definition.
I think mine would be pretty close to that. I don't think it necessarily has to be voluntary, just so long as the person puts the welfare of others in front of his own. It doesn't have to be one incident, it could be sacrifices a person makes daily.
Although, generally, I like to think this kind of thing through much more than I have. I guess that's a working definition for the moment.
Interestingly, I have a somewhat similar vocation to this man (military/law enforcement), and it never occurred to me that if I died in the line of duty, that I would be considered a hero for it.
Your comment certainly sparked a lot of thought for me, and I thank you for that!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.