Journalism school dean: The First Amendment ends at insulting Mohammed

[Delta4Embassy]

Just wondering, as a public service to the liberal left, does free speech now also stop at mocking Jesus?

Don't tempt fate. I got some zingers handy for mocking Jesus, and the other guy.

Are you too scared of the riots if you use them?

No I'm too scared of violent nutjobs knocking on my door, or blowing it up altogether. I'm not exactly in hiding or anonymous. I see the line, and make sure I stay on the not-suicidal side of things.

Oh, a coward. Okay, thanks.

Better to be a living coward than dead brave man. But to dabble as much as I dare: Knpwing how Bill Maher bashes all religions, something for him comes to mind. Inspired by South Park's "Human-Cent-IPad" or whatever episode, imagine all the biggest religions' prophets connected in some amusing way, or daisy-chained together. Buddha to Moses to Jesus to (coughs) to that LDS guy to L. Ron Hubbard.

 

[Iceweasel]

Just a month ago or so you people were claiming the first Amendment ended where the protestors in NYC supposedly incited a man to kill 2 policemen.

Which is it? You people flip flop more than a boated fish.

The flipflop is between your ears. Inciting riots or murder isn't a protected right. Shouting fire in a crowded theater isn't a 1st Amendment right. Your rights are not supreme, they cannot trample someone else's right. That's something a fifth grader would know.

So if mocking Muhammed incites murders, or terrorism, it's outside the 1st amendment?

If mocking Muhammed incites murder the problem is with the murderers just like it would be for mocking Jesus.

edit: oops, look like someone brought that up. Waiting for an answer.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Typical fascist liberal against free speech. No surprises here.

legal limits on their own profession. When the New York Times refuses to run a cartoon goofing on Islam, they don’t want the reason to be government censorship. They prefer to be censored by more sympathetic agents, like violent Muslim radicals.

To be precise here, though, DeWayne Hickham, the dean of Morgan State’s J-school, isn’t demanding a “Mohammed exception” to the First Amendment. He’s demanding an exception for all speech that would make the audience so angry that they might react violently — exactly the sort of slippery slope on censorship that people like you and me worry about when images of Mohammed are suppressed. Actual line from this op-ed, regarding the new cover of Charlie Hebdo: “The once little-known French satirical news weekly crossed the line that separates free speech from toxic talk.”

Journalism school dean The First Amendment ends at insulting Mohammed Hot Air

And, OF COURSE, what constitutes "toxic talk" with a liberal is ANYTHING that might offend their constant butthurt world, or make them take to their "tolerence smelling salts."

You ever notice liberal cries for tolerance, NEVER include the tolerance of speech they don't like?????

So, this is typical. If they had their way, they would re-write the 1st Amendment to suit them, which would mean they can talk all they want, but anyone who says something they disagree with, would be jailed.

Liberalism = Fascism.

The slippery slope argument is one of the worst I ever heard.

That being said, I wouldn't send ANY aspiring journalist to Morgan State.

 

[BlindBoo]

Typical fascist liberal against free speech. No surprises here.

Liberalism = Fascism.

You really shouldn't use words you don't understand.
Please educate yourself.



fascism
/ˈfæʃɪzəm/
noun (sometimes capital)
1.
any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2.
any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc

Why did Jonah Goldberg write Liberal Fascism? To find out, you must wade through 391 pages of tendentious scholarship. A mighty jackbooted procession—Herbert Croly, John Dewey, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Herbert Marcuse, John F. Kennedy, Saul Alinsky, Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton—goose-steps across the page to illustrate Goldberg's apparent belief that, with the exception of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and everything published inNational Review (where Goldberg is contributing editor), every word previously written or spoken in favor of mobilizing the citizenry was either proto-fascist, fascist, or heavily influenced by fascism. On Page 392, though, Goldberg emerges from his dusty carrel and gives it to us straight:


Ever since I joined the public conversation as a conservative writer, I've been called a fascist and a Nazi by smug, liberal know-nothings, sublimely confident of the truth of their ill-informed prejudices. Responding to this slander is, as a point of personal privilege alone, a worthwhile endeavor.

Liberal Fascism, then, is a howl of rage disguised as intellectual history. Some mean liberals called Goldberg hurtful names, so he's responding with 400 pages that boil down to: I know you are, but what am I?

Jonah Goldberg s Liberal Fascism.

 

[Iceweasel]

mobilizing the citizenry was either proto-fascist, fascist, or heavily influenced by fascism. On Page 392, though, Goldberg emerges from his dusty carrel and gives it to us straight:

Ever since I joined the public conversation as a conservative writer, I've been called a fascist and a Nazi by smug, liberal know-nothings, sublimely confident of the truth of their ill-informed prejudices. Responding to this slander is, as a point of personal privilege alone, a worthwhile endeavor.

Liberal Fascism, then, is a howl of rage disguised as intellectual history. Some mean liberals called Goldberg hurtful names, so he's responding with 400 pages that boil down to: I know you are, but what am I?

Jonah Goldberg s Liberal Fascism.

And the author's opinion is valuable because...?

 

[The Rabbi]

Typical fascist liberal against free speech. No surprises here.

legal limits on their own profession. When the New York Times refuses to run a cartoon goofing on Islam, they don’t want the reason to be government censorship. They prefer to be censored by more sympathetic agents, like violent Muslim radicals.

To be precise here, though, DeWayne Hickham, the dean of Morgan State’s J-school, isn’t demanding a “Mohammed exception” to the First Amendment. He’s demanding an exception for all speech that would make the audience so angry that they might react violently — exactly the sort of slippery slope on censorship that people like you and me worry about when images of Mohammed are suppressed. Actual line from this op-ed, regarding the new cover of Charlie Hebdo: “The once little-known French satirical news weekly crossed the line that separates free speech from toxic talk.”

Journalism school dean The First Amendment ends at insulting Mohammed Hot Air

And, OF COURSE, what constitutes "toxic talk" with a liberal is ANYTHING that might offend their constant butthurt world, or make them take to their "tolerence smelling salts."

You ever notice liberal cries for tolerance, NEVER include the tolerance of speech they don't like?????

So, this is typical. If they had their way, they would re-write the 1st Amendment to suit them, which would mean they can talk all they want, but anyone who says something they disagree with, would be jailed.

Liberalism = Fascism.

He's right. The First Amendment isn't absolute. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre either. And if mocking Mohammed results pretty predictably and assuredly in riots globally, that's even worse than shouting "Fire!"

Bullshit. If we enact that standard we will have no 1A left, which is what libs want.
The standard is "clear and present danger." Some goat humper in Pakistan getting his panties in a wad is not a clear and present danger.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just wondering, as a public service to the liberal left, does free speech now also stop at mocking Jesus?

Only when Christians start beheading people.
Get your knife sharpeners out.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The notion that the First Amendment guarantees you the right to NOT be offended guts the First Amendment in a terrifying way.

The idea that a journalism professor - journalist have traditionally been real champions of the First Amendment - would advocate this is terrifying as well and (to me) proof positive that the journalism profession is taken a serious turn for the worse.

 

[BlindBoo]

mobilizing the citizenry was either proto-fascist, fascist, or heavily influenced by fascism. On Page 392, though, Goldberg emerges from his dusty carrel and gives it to us straight:

Ever since I joined the public conversation as a conservative writer, I've been called a fascist and a Nazi by smug, liberal know-nothings, sublimely confident of the truth of their ill-informed prejudices. Responding to this slander is, as a point of personal privilege alone, a worthwhile endeavor.

Liberal Fascism, then, is a howl of rage disguised as intellectual history. Some mean liberals called Goldberg hurtful names, so he's responding with 400 pages that boil down to: I know you are, but what am I?

Jonah Goldberg s Liberal Fascism.

And the author's opinion is valuable because...?

I think it is important to counter the doublethink from the nutty pseudo-cons who champion Goldberg's fallacy.

 

[The Rabbi]

The notion that the First Amendment guarantees you the right to NOT be offended guts the First Amendment in a terrifying way.

The idea that a journalism professor - journalist have traditionally been real champions of the First Amendment - is terrifying as well and (to me) proof positive that the journalism profession is taken a serious turn for the worse.

Wow, a serious post I can agree with. Thanks!
I remember when libs were all about the 1A. They wanted more freedom of speech and even marched for neo Nazis and other scumbags, rightly recognizing that where only some people have freedom of speech, no one has freedom of speech.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just a month ago or so you people were claiming the first Amendment ended where the protestors in NYC supposedly incited a man to kill 2 policemen.

Which is it? You people flip flop more than a boated fish.

The flipflop is between your ears. Inciting riots or murder isn't a protected right. Shouting fire in a crowded theater isn't a 1st Amendment right. Your rights are not supreme, they cannot trample someone else's right. That's something a fifth grader would know.

So if mocking Muhammed incites murders, or terrorism, it's outside the 1st amendment?

If mocking Muhammed incites murder the problem is with the murderers just like it would be for mocking Jesus.

edit: oops, look like someone brought that up. Waiting for an answer.

You say that right after you said this:

"Inciting riots or murder isn't a protected right."

So which is it? If mocking Muhammed incites murder is a protected right or not?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Typical fascist liberal against free speech. No surprises here.

legal limits on their own profession. When the New York Times refuses to run a cartoon goofing on Islam, they don’t want the reason to be government censorship. They prefer to be censored by more sympathetic agents, like violent Muslim radicals.

To be precise here, though, DeWayne Hickham, the dean of Morgan State’s J-school, isn’t demanding a “Mohammed exception” to the First Amendment. He’s demanding an exception for all speech that would make the audience so angry that they might react violently — exactly the sort of slippery slope on censorship that people like you and me worry about when images of Mohammed are suppressed. Actual line from this op-ed, regarding the new cover of Charlie Hebdo: “The once little-known French satirical news weekly crossed the line that separates free speech from toxic talk.”

Journalism school dean The First Amendment ends at insulting Mohammed Hot Air

And, OF COURSE, what constitutes "toxic talk" with a liberal is ANYTHING that might offend their constant butthurt world, or make them take to their "tolerence smelling salts."

You ever notice liberal cries for tolerance, NEVER include the tolerance of speech they don't like?????

So, this is typical. If they had their way, they would re-write the 1st Amendment to suit them, which would mean they can talk all they want, but anyone who says something they disagree with, would be jailed.

Liberalism = Fascism.

He's right. The First Amendment isn't absolute. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre either. And if mocking Mohammed results pretty predictably and assuredly in riots globally, that's even worse than shouting "Fire!"

Bullshit. If we enact that standard we will have no 1A left, which is what libs want.
The standard is "clear and present danger." Some goat humper in Pakistan getting his panties in a wad is not a clear and present danger.

Up to the point your goat humpers riot and attack the lcoal consulate in oh I dunno, Bengazzi, Libiya.

 

[The Rabbi]

mobilizing the citizenry was either proto-fascist, fascist, or heavily influenced by fascism. On Page 392, though, Goldberg emerges from his dusty carrel and gives it to us straight:

Ever since I joined the public conversation as a conservative writer, I've been called a fascist and a Nazi by smug, liberal know-nothings, sublimely confident of the truth of their ill-informed prejudices. Responding to this slander is, as a point of personal privilege alone, a worthwhile endeavor.

Liberal Fascism, then, is a howl of rage disguised as intellectual history. Some mean liberals called Goldberg hurtful names, so he's responding with 400 pages that boil down to: I know you are, but what am I?

Jonah Goldberg s Liberal Fascism.

And the author's opinion is valuable because...?

I think it is important to counter the doublethink from the nutty pseudo-cons who champion Goldberg's fallacy.

I jut ffinished Goldberg's book on liberal cliches. The man is brilliant and well educated. No wonder libs hate him

 

[The Rabbi]

Typical fascist liberal against free speech. No surprises here.

legal limits on their own profession. When the New York Times refuses to run a cartoon goofing on Islam, they don’t want the reason to be government censorship. They prefer to be censored by more sympathetic agents, like violent Muslim radicals.

To be precise here, though, DeWayne Hickham, the dean of Morgan State’s J-school, isn’t demanding a “Mohammed exception” to the First Amendment. He’s demanding an exception for all speech that would make the audience so angry that they might react violently — exactly the sort of slippery slope on censorship that people like you and me worry about when images of Mohammed are suppressed. Actual line from this op-ed, regarding the new cover of Charlie Hebdo: “The once little-known French satirical news weekly crossed the line that separates free speech from toxic talk.”

Journalism school dean The First Amendment ends at insulting Mohammed Hot Air

And, OF COURSE, what constitutes "toxic talk" with a liberal is ANYTHING that might offend their constant butthurt world, or make them take to their "tolerence smelling salts."

You ever notice liberal cries for tolerance, NEVER include the tolerance of speech they don't like?????

So, this is typical. If they had their way, they would re-write the 1st Amendment to suit them, which would mean they can talk all they want, but anyone who says something they disagree with, would be jailed.

Liberalism = Fascism.

He's right. The First Amendment isn't absolute. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre either. And if mocking Mohammed results pretty predictably and assuredly in riots globally, that's even worse than shouting "Fire!"

Bullshit. If we enact that standard we will have no 1A left, which is what libs want.
The standard is "clear and present danger." Some goat humper in Pakistan getting his panties in a wad is not a clear and present danger.

Up to the point your goat humpers riot and attack the lcoal consulate in oh I dunno, Bengazzi, Libiya.

That was because of a video, right?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Typical fascist liberal against free speech. No surprises here.

legal limits on their own profession. When the New York Times refuses to run a cartoon goofing on Islam, they don’t want the reason to be government censorship. They prefer to be censored by more sympathetic agents, like violent Muslim radicals.

To be precise here, though, DeWayne Hickham, the dean of Morgan State’s J-school, isn’t demanding a “Mohammed exception” to the First Amendment. He’s demanding an exception for all speech that would make the audience so angry that they might react violently — exactly the sort of slippery slope on censorship that people like you and me worry about when images of Mohammed are suppressed. Actual line from this op-ed, regarding the new cover of Charlie Hebdo: “The once little-known French satirical news weekly crossed the line that separates free speech from toxic talk.”

Journalism school dean The First Amendment ends at insulting Mohammed Hot Air

And, OF COURSE, what constitutes "toxic talk" with a liberal is ANYTHING that might offend their constant butthurt world, or make them take to their "tolerence smelling salts."

You ever notice liberal cries for tolerance, NEVER include the tolerance of speech they don't like?????

So, this is typical. If they had their way, they would re-write the 1st Amendment to suit them, which would mean they can talk all they want, but anyone who says something they disagree with, would be jailed.

Liberalism = Fascism.

He's right. The First Amendment isn't absolute. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre either. And if mocking Mohammed results pretty predictably and assuredly in riots globally, that's even worse than shouting "Fire!"

Bullshit. If we enact that standard we will have no 1A left, which is what libs want.
The standard is "clear and present danger." Some goat humper in Pakistan getting his panties in a wad is not a clear and present danger.

Up to the point your goat humpers riot and attack the lcoal consulate in oh I dunno, Bengazzi, Libiya.

That was because of a video, right?

Who knows. I don't watch Fox THAT much. Watch their breaking/live stuff but not the commentary crap from anyone. Will form my own commentary thanks.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I'm assuming, then, if Christians start slaughtering people, beheading them and threatening them for messing with Jesus, that everyone has to stop messing with Jesus.

So slaughter, and your deity becomes protected.

This just gets more fucking absurd by the minute.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Typical fascist liberal against free speech. No surprises here.

Journalism school dean The First Amendment ends at insulting Mohammed Hot Air

And, OF COURSE, what constitutes "toxic talk" with a liberal is ANYTHING that might offend their constant butthurt world, or make them take to their "tolerence smelling salts."

You ever notice liberal cries for tolerance, NEVER include the tolerance of speech they don't like?????

So, this is typical. If they had their way, they would re-write the 1st Amendment to suit them, which would mean they can talk all they want, but anyone who says something they disagree with, would be jailed.

Liberalism = Fascism.

He's right. The First Amendment isn't absolute. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre either. And if mocking Mohammed results pretty predictably and assuredly in riots globally, that's even worse than shouting "Fire!"

Bullshit. If we enact that standard we will have no 1A left, which is what libs want.
The standard is "clear and present danger." Some goat humper in Pakistan getting his panties in a wad is not a clear and present danger.

Up to the point your goat humpers riot and attack the lcoal consulate in oh I dunno, Bengazzi, Libiya.

That was because of a video, right?

Who knows. I don't watch Fox THAT much. Watch their breaking/live stuff but not the commentary crap from anyone. Will form my own commentary thanks.

OK if you believe it was a video you are too uninformed to opine on this topic.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The notion that the First Amendment guarantees you the right to NOT be offended guts the First Amendment in a terrifying way.

The idea that a journalism professor - journalist have traditionally been real champions of the First Amendment - is terrifying as well and (to me) proof positive that the journalism profession is taken a serious turn for the worse.

Wow, a serious post I can agree with. Thanks!
I remember when libs were all about the 1A. They wanted more freedom of speech and even marched for neo Nazis and other scumbags, rightly recognizing that where only some people have freedom of speech, no one has freedom of speech.

Agree 100%. I've attacked you and your posts early and often Rabbi, but I can admit that when you are right, you are right.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

I'm assuming, then, if Christians start slaughtering people, beheading them and threatening them for messing with Jesus, that everyone has to stop messing with Jesus.

So slaughter, and your deity becomes protected.

This just gets more fucking absurd by the minute.

.

That goes for anything.
Remember the CEO who was discovered to have given money to a pro marriage group and the gays agitated until he had to leave? All you need is to bring some violent muscle for your particular cause--gay marriage, global warming, vegetarianism--and suddenly opposition to your view becomes hate speech and banned.

 

[The Rabbi]

The notion that the First Amendment guarantees you the right to NOT be offended guts the First Amendment in a terrifying way.

The idea that a journalism professor - journalist have traditionally been real champions of the First Amendment - is terrifying as well and (to me) proof positive that the journalism profession is taken a serious turn for the worse.

Wow, a serious post I can agree with. Thanks!
I remember when libs were all about the 1A. They wanted more freedom of speech and even marched for neo Nazis and other scumbags, rightly recognizing that where only some people have freedom of speech, no one has freedom of speech.

Agree 100%. I've attacked you and your posts early and often Rabbi, but I can admit that when you are right, you are right.

Teh truth of the matter is that if we had a meeting of this board every week at a bar we'd probably all be friends.Except some of the real whackos crazy assholes here. You know who you are.