Posted on 12/26/2001 6:59:33 AM PST by tberry
I think we could agree that the press need to be silent on military movements..but it is the press's function to keep the government honest.
We do not agree that it is ever all right to have an office of "disinformation"
The purpose of that office is to deceive the American public. I hated it when the USSR did it and when the Muslims do it today. I want the press to ALWAYS be an antagonist to the government. The problem in recent years was they were in bed with the democrats when I want and expect them to be watchdogs
And please do not twist my words or misquote me.I did not say you HAD silenced anything.I said you would like to silence.That is a big difference.
Please tell me where I stated in this thread, where I wanted to "silence" you. I gave my opinion about your views. Sheesh, your above statement almost sounds Hillaryish, where someone giving their opinion is considered trying to silence.
No! but...
Post #12 and post #28 are.
The views expressed on Lew Rockwell have every bit as much right to be heard as you or Capt. Norm do. Not always, but many times, they have very pertinent and insightful ideas to present to conservatives, even if nationalistic fascists don't agree.
Probably.
Is this the same OWK who left FR never to return?
What's your point?
No, they are calls for Lew Rockwell articles to not be posted on FR. Only JimRob and his approved moderators have the ability to pull posts. Capt. Norm, you and myself have no such power. And, BTW, it's not censorship for JimRob to set standards for what is posted on his website. It would be censorship for the government to tell JimRob that Lew Rockwell articles are not allowed on FR.
My point is that you seem to have changed.
I recall a pleasant man, who valued liberty, rights and the constitution, and valued the company of those who thought likewise.
What happened to him?
Exactly and when you attempt to have ideas that you don't agree with withheld from presentation and discussion you are using CENSORSHIP to prevent ideas, contrary to your's, persuading others.
Lew Rockwell didn't post the articles, I did and I have the same rights as everyone else on FR to post.
Once again, censorship would be for the government to tell FR not to post Lew Rockwell articles. Or are you saying that, if Jim Robinson did not approve of Lew Rockwell articles, that the government should force him to allow them on FR in the name of the First Amendment? That is a perversion of that right, and a violation of the right of association inherent in the First.
Lew Rockwell didn't post the articles, I did and I have the same rights as everyone else on FR to post.
You have only the rights as determined by JimRob as the owner of this forum. If he decides he doesn't want LewRockwell articles here, that is his choice, and you could go set up your own forum to allow them to be posted. I get weary of folks running around crying "censorship" - as if the First Amendment starts and ends with freedom of expression.
WRONG! You are trying to nit pick and hide behind legalities.
Censorship is censorship whether a particular government approves or not. Just as the rights in the Constitution are God given and exist whether governments approve of don't approve. We happen to live in a country that doesn't agree with censorship and most thinking people don't agree with censorship and Jim Robinson evidently doesn't agree with censorship. He just requires a degree of civility and mutual respect.
So please respect all other's rights to hear Lew Rockwell even if you don't like it.
Well, I never proposed an "Office of Disinformation", but I believe disinformation is sometimes necessary, particularly when a nation is fighting a war.
I have not called for Lew Rockwell to be censored. But, once again, if Jim Robinson refused to carry Lew Rockwell, in the name of the First Amendment, should he be forced by the government to carry Lew Rockwell columns against his will in the name of preventing censorship? That is the fallocy of your argument - if what JimRob is doing is censorship and censorship is against the First Amendment, then the government should force him to carry something on his PRIVATE website against his will. And it's telling that you do not perceive that fallocy.
I never realized the First Amendment was a legality. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
Certainly it's a legality. All laws are legalities.
From the law: ‘‘(5) the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activi- ties that—
‘‘(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
‘‘(B) appear to be intended— ‘‘(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; ‘‘(ii) to influence the policy of a gov- ernment by intimidation or coercion; or ‘‘(iii) to affect the conduct of a gov- ernment by mass destruction, assassina- tion, or kidnapping;
and ‘‘(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’’. ,
To summarize, the construction is "A...; B...; and C...."
That each element is neccessary is obvious.
For those who've never thought about logic, or have an IQ barely sufficient for everyday activities, an example of this construction would be an order at a fast-food emporium for "regular fries, regular coke, and a Big Mac".
Of course the order would not be fulfilled by supplying only one of it's elements.
(For those, unlike Lew Rockwell readers, who appreciate logic, there is an example in clause B of an "or" construction- in which, unlike an "and" construction, any one element is sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the clause.)
Now, are we to believe that an author is too stupid to understand this- even a Lew Rockwell author? Possible, but very unlikely.
The conclusion is that the Lew Rockwell readers are assumed too stupid to understand this, and that the Lew Rockwell author is consciously taking advantage of their assumed clinical idiocy to decieve them.
Oh, and please, please feel free to abandon your dull obstinance and try to justify the author's alternate logical construction of the law.
No, it is not.
In fact, I read quite the opposite.
Satisfaction of ANY (not all) of the specified conditions, satisfies the law.
In fact, based on the text of the conditions, that is the ONLY possible conclusion.
Sorry, you're simply wrong.
Exactly the persons that should be judging the President. American citizens.
Your response would make more sense if you replaced 'the president' with 'Il Duce' or 'Der Fuhrer'.
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.