FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

I don't have a problem with the government asking Google to review the video because they felt it violated Google's terms of service. I would have a problem if the government pushed the issue more and tried to force it to be taken down. Asking for it to be taken down as a means of trying to protect people in harm's way isn't bad to me; I mean, you're just asking. Forcing it would be censorship, and in this case I don't see it as something that violates the First Amendment. But what's wrong with asking Google to review it? Or was there more to it? I read the story but can't remember.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD



Done.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

It's just an attempt to utilize clever lawyering to circumvent the First Amendment.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Romney must feel like he's in alien skin and has been for a better part of a year. You know, I could see that 47 percent line coming out of Palin's mouth and Palin believing it because her upbringing and white-hot burning insecurity and narcissism. I suspect Romney's life has actually not revolved around those emotions, and yet here he is having to pander to them.

For me, Romney's decline as a statesman always goes back to when Rudy G - just a venal you-know-what of a person, useful to a point - sunk his teeth hard into Romney in 2008 out of what seemed to the be same kind of fuck-you-I'm-a-prosecutor mindset that Rudy often indulged. That staggered Romney, and instead of keeping his head above, he adopted just enough of Palin's pure hatefulness to now come off as fortunate <i>and</i> resentful, which is a bad combination.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

If anyone can point out an era when our foreign policy has been Ivory pure, feel free. Our track record in Central America alone makes this look like a jaywalking ticket.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

We are supposed to be standing up for free and unpopular speech.

We're supposed to be setting an example for the rest of the world. How can we speak out on behalf of dissidents around the world, if we are trying to squelch unpopular speech at home?

If we won't do it, who will?

And, instead of criticizing the film, and treating rioting Muslims like children, we strongly state that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are not incompatible?

Why not stress that we do not limit speech in America, and that in the 21st Century, people need to realize that they are going to come across speech and images that they disagree with? Why not stress that no "great religion" is threatened by the musings of a "filmmaker" half a world away?

Instead, we pander to the notion that offensive speech should be squelched, specifically because it is offensive.

Politicians loudly proclaim how "Patriotic" political "dissent" is. So, how do they justify the condemnation of offensive religious speech? Isn't that just as important?

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

There you go. That'll keep the peace.

Somehow, I think Obama's going to do OK against Romney in Americans' measure of foreign policy.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

True, in a literal sense, it's no First Amendment violation if it's merely a request and not an order. BUT, let's be honest, a request coming from the top of the U.S. Federal Govt has a far more coercive feel than a request from any other source. "Oh, so you won't do as we ask? Hmm, hope the IRS doesn't take too close a look at your taxes this year, hope the AG's Antitrust Division doesn't get a little more curious about you, etc."

Not sure the Fed Govt should be in the business of advising private entities on what kind of free expression they should be allowing, even if merely in request form, considering the power it has to fuck with nearly anyone's private life should it feel inclined. That's a slippery slope and fine line where mere request starts to feel like veiled compulsion.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

I don't disagree here, but I don't think the government has to "stand up" for this. In fact, I feel strongly that there's nothing wrong with the government or its officials condemning the film as being in bad taste and offensive.

The government shouldn't squelch it, though; like I said, I think this should be protected by the First Amendment even if it is vile. But I don't see anything horrible about the government asking Google to review it in regards to YouTube's policies. I don't see asking a company to look at it as the government squelching it. When federal agents are at Google headquarters, then I think there's an issue. Was there pressure applied to Google beyond asking them to review it?

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

The Middle East maneuvering is all about politics there. It's the next step in the political turmoil of the region. Call it the long, hot Arab summer if you will.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD


The US government has asked (strongarmed, cajoled, threatened, etc.) private media to think twice about publishing certain things since the founding of the republic.