loliticz.com

Slow day for stupid Pols, show kitty instead.

Not sure you iz srious about apology. U iz wise older man, u not uz brain b4 u speek? U tries harder, kthxbai

Here at loliticz.com, in an effort to keep our scores astronomical in everyone’s eyes, we have come up with a way to keep the political correctness free speech inhibitor from coming anywhere near us.

THE LOLITICICAL POLITICAL RANKS COLOR LEGEND

Under Construction
The Stephen Colbert Zone
Stephen Colbert: he’s there for the right political reason, humor. Just like uz.

republicans
Appeasement of the Right
red for republicans: Politicians who are firm in their beliefs that government should not be run by single entities, like monarchs or dictators but by systems of laws. (lawyers for laws)

Lectroid bureaucrats
Banzai Mannequins
orange for Lectroid bureaucrats:

“They have apparently but a single fear, and that is the fear of ridicule. They lack the most elementary sense of humour and are, unless of a mood to fight, quite reserved, even somnolent. For this latter trait, I am most grateful; otherwise, having not caught many of them napping, the scales of our engagement might not have tipped so propitiously in our favor.” Buckaroo Banzai FAQ

Academic Protesters
Hell No! Wait? What?
yellow for Academic Protesters: Ivory tower theorists who organize as a way to publicly and forcefully make their opinions heard in an attempt to influence public opinion or government policy, leading to real and perceived tension.

democrats
Appeasement of the Left
blue for democrats: Politicians who are firm in their beliefs that government should not be run by single entities, like monarchs or dictators but by the exercise of power by the people. (mob rule)

WingNut MoonBats
Doom on You! Doom on You!
green for the wingnut moonbats: Bloggers of the Right and of the Left ardently supporting their respective Politicians Used with right and barking for emphasis. See the movie Ice Age for survival characteristics.

Bai Bai Sam, waz gud try, just not 4 u

Freedom of Speech, SRSLY

So, it seems that folks out in the world have some problems with the first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Loliticz will attempt to address these problems in our usual way of pedantically stating what the rules are, and how and why they work for everyone who is a citizen of the state wherein they apply. Extension of these rules to other folks may be good press, but if they don’t possess citizenship or the right to live in the United States, they don’t, and should not (under laws designed to protect citizens of the United States) really get to enjoy all the freedoms that those who do live here possess. There is a reason we live here, and yet another reason why some folks flee other first world countries to become citizens here. Citizens of the United States can sue under our rules to change how we apply our own laws, but that is a whole ‘nother article.

The First Amendment to the Constitution is expressed as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What does this mean? In the case of the clause on Freedom of speech, it means, that there shall be no law that curtails a person’s ability to express what he/she/it thinks. This is generally true, but there are some expressions that have been curtailed by the courts over time. It is not a free speech exercise to stand up in a crowded theater and yell “FIRE!” It is not a free speech exercise to stand up on a soapbox, or other kind of platform, and exhort a crowd to harm others. It is a free speech exercise to express ones convictions about a political party, or other visible, or invisible group so long as that expression stays within the bounds set forth by law and ratified by Supreme Court decision.

What does this mean in todays society?

It means the policy’s and beliefs of a single group should not be censored by other groups simply because they hold positions of power currently within institutions or organizations. It means unpopular positions have the right to be heard. It means unpopular opinions also have the right to be debated, or refuted, or protested. What it does not mean is that unpopular opinions should be silenced, by threat or by action, and when such threats are voiced, they need to be retracted. We have legal remedies when they are not, and those should be exercised against whatever side the threats were issued from.

Below is an example of the stifling of Free Speech on one college campus, George Washington University.

Recently a conservative student group, Young America’s Foundation, made a decision to hold a “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” at George Washington University. This decision is quite within the freedom of assembly and freedom of expression sentiments of the Framers. Quite possibly the Framers were able to envision completely silly ways in which their document would be used, but they felt it better to have open debate on ideas than to have back-room conspiracies. The more liberal elements on the same campus became somewhat incensed about this expression, and denounced the event in no uncertain terms.

At some point after all this denunciation, posters went up around the campus that stated “HATE MUSLIMS? SO DO WE!” and included other anti-Muslim statements. Now we begin to enter the gray area of Free Speech… Inciting Hatred is not protected speech, depending on the form and the method of communication. Student groups and Officials of George Washington University began a concerted effort to place the Young America’s Foundation at a remove from the University, and in statements, spoke openly of expelling the students responsible for the posters. Still in the Freedom of Speech category, but Officials have a more stringent set of rules placed upon their utterances than do mere students, and consequences for their actions in speech and deed.

After some investigation, it was found that the originators of the posters, and the hateful references were a small band of liberal students at odds with the Young America’s Foundation student group.

What to do? The socially liberal officials of George Washington University, having stated their position that the perpetrators should be expelled when they believed that said perpetrators were members of the conservative organization now are faced with having to either A) backpedal and prove that their interest was completely biased, or B) continue and destroy the careers of 7 students whose views they really do support, although not in such an active way as to tack up posters, or C) stall, keep their heads down, and hope that this whole issue blows over and they can keep their positions and students intact. None of these seem to be palatable, but the Young America’s Foundation which has been the target of all of the vituperation and threats should at the very least get a public apology from the people who sought to revile them.

Given the behavior of one member of the campus student organizations, Bridgette Behling, director of student involvement at George Washington University, it is unlikely that either of the above courses will come to pass. In fact, given the seriousness of the charges against the conservative organization, I would suspect some legal actions and court rulings may be in the future. Freedom of Speech is not freedom to suppress speech, but to hold it out to the light of debate. To do that, organizations such as Universities must tolerate open debate from all sides, not just the sides that they like, or agree with.

There is much more to this debate on freedom of expression, and I will leave you with some reading on the subject. Gentle Reader, you may not agree, but you have the freedom to rebut in a reasonable manner at least here in the United States. George Washington fought for that freedom and you should at least respect the efforts he and the other Framers put into the legal system you live under. In my not so humble opinion.

Visit:

• whizbangblog for the original reporting that I stumbled upon.
• Indoctrinate-U for an in-depth look at how unpopular opinions are being suppressed by “speech codes” in many of the United State’s universities and colleges.
• ACLU the original organization for the protection of free speech. The ACLU practices what it preaches and has a large archive of past court decisions and current free speech issues.
• Brain Terminal dot com for a review of a conservative movie on suppression of conservative values.

NOW THATZ TRUTHINESS!

Iz not smrt, Iz need legal counsels

ZOMG I iz Russian Hero. U no killz!

Not President, so whut… I haz shiny medal and bright lights everywhur.

U NOT CONFUZE UZ, UZ WANT U TO BE CONSISTENCZ, PLZ