Farewell to Free Speech

[jenna]

This is an article that describes a college professor that was asked to resign by the governor of his state, due to views that he expressed in an essay.

In the essay he compared the victims of 9/11 to nazis because they worked either for the military or in jobs such as banking that supported the military industrial complex which is responsible for killing many people in third world countries.

i disagree with what he was saying. However, he should have the right to express his opinion without fear of losing his job. Asking him to resign is a huge violation of freedom of speech. To me, the actions of that governor made it so although i disagree with the guy, it seems like he may have a point in that the government is taking a turn torwards fascism.

Here is the article:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,141 ... 82,00.html

And this is the essay he wrote that all the fuss is over:
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

[The Stormstress]

Free Speech all the way!!! Damn the government 4 mpeding on our basic rightz!!! AGAIN!!!

[Melicious Scam]

Well I am pretty sure that this guy is probably going to get severly harassed for his opinions.......

like i sang before "it's beginning to look a lot like 1984"

[B_Ko]

Agreed. Some people have stupid opinions. But then again, that's my opinion. In short everytone has their opinions, and they are entitled to express it.

[karmakaze]

well, he has published a book that expands on his paper. any publicity is good publicity. go him.

[iblis]

I disagree with a portion of what he was saying throughout the entire article - maybe as much as 30% of it.

But he has the right to say it, anyway.

The Good Thing™ about all of this is, like Ben mentioned, it's all winding up as more publicity. So at least he'll get some compensation for the horseshit he's getting for speaking his mind.

[4X541N7]

Nope...I agree with about 90% of the point...Please, I don't want to argue...Just saying...

[karmakaze]

well you really have to wonder why people are getting so pissed off. is it just because he has offensive subject matter, or is it because he is actually making a few valid points with his offensive subject matter.

my experience is that a lot of the time people become more offended when you are right about something.

[4X541N7]

well you really have to wonder why people are getting so pissed off. is it just because he has offensive subject matter, or is it because he is actually making a few valid points with his offensive subject matter.

my experience is that a lot of the time people become more offended when you are right about something.

I for one, try to watch what I post on here...I refuse to censor myself...But, I'm not stupid...I know that alot of people on here wouldn't agree with me with alot of things...But if it's relevent, then it's posted...But, I do watch the words I use...One, I don't like getting posts deleted, & some of them would be, & I understand why...Two, if something where to happen, & the G-Men started look our way...I really don't want Cops at Sanctus, Temple, etc...Because of something I said...Cops are cool & all...I have past bullshit with them..Some of them harass me...But for the most part, they're just doing there jobs...lalala...Tangent...Anyway, to sum this post up...Free Speech all the way, because I talk alot...

[CrimeCore]

There's some things I don't agree with but mostly I feel he related the actions taken by the first george to nazi's to try and get a little bit of a shock factor..and maybe he was searching for people to say "well nazi's are bad so bush must be too" but obviously that's not the right kind of comparison to use.but who said he can't say it? most definately fucked up to harrass him for such.

[Balance]

Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

"When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History "
by Thom Hartmann

The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely
reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that
fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the
anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens
all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis,
received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had
launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely
ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew,
however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are
still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service
helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in
part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the
nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of
citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a
simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in
black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the
subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His
coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost
state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric
offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in
the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society
with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved
skulls and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't
know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an
aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was
ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to
the scene and called a press conference.

"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he
proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by
national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is
the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to
declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people,
he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation
for their evil deeds in their religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in
Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In
a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even
printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader
had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and
fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional
guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now
intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned
without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could
sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed
over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he
agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency
provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights
would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be
re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the
bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police
agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and
holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a
few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by
the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a
leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader
in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the
newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in
protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the
meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to
control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very
competent orator.)

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a
political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He
wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of
referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The
Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech
recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The
Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an
us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens
thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he
suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on
others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives
better, it's of little concern to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the
French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body
that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation
was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the
League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval
armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a
worldwide military ruling elite.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he
was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in
Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian
faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in
his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" -
God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.

Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that
the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking
the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to
deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those
citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and
communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and
"liberals." He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security
of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously
independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single
leader.

He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new
agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in
the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist
attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning the
legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his
checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his
central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to
phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful
that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast
on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and
celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the
media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate
allies.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough.
He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former
executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government
positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to
fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within
the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large
corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial
concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by
suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances
with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions
to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state.
Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of
dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started
an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and
leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric.
He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate
cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly
illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil
libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or
access to attorneys or family.

With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a
campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was
necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle
Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had
set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held
resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and
maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly
delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an
international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in
self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it,
pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations
seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.

It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with
European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United
Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime
Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in
to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time."
Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular
support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was
unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German
corporations began to take over Austrian resources.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain
foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I
can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of
my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the
former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have
never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."

To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his
politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a
campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation
itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the
terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the
nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be
only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein
Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide
campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation
itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good
Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by
failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in
uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit
wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the
"intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.

Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully and
quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again
raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the
dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and
totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public
attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing
dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the
epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the
corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.

A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now
fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of
national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with
democracy.

As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth
remembering.

February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van
der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag)
building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and
reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief
action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler
was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed
around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."

Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known
as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most
famous agency's initials: the SS.

We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent
warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating
devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and
awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book
"Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.

Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German
democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German
corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power:

"fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a
dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state
and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember
that the felches of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States
alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different
courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.

Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward
the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle
dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of
prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum
wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish
the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the
wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of
last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the
arts, and replant forests.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again
ours.

____________________________________________________________________
Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and is the
author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last
Hours of Ancient Sunlight." This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but
permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so
long as this credit is attached.

[karmakaze]

chris (dominion) had me read this tonight and i thought it was very interesting. for those of you who jumped to such harsh opinions of this man, i highly recommend reading his response. well actually, i highly recommend reading it regardless of your opinion.

i personally, agree with the guy. he is making extraordinarily valid points. which, in my opinion, is why so many people are getting pissed off about his expressions. if he was not making a reasonable conclusion, we would not of heard anything about him.

but read it, and actually think about what he is trying to say.

http://www.colorado.edu/EthnicStudies/p ... 13105.html

[karmakaze]

this is a cross post from the other forum in response to the following quote...

"I am appalled first that this person with such a warped sense of right and wrong and of humanity teaches at a higher education institution anywhere in America," Pataki said. "But I am equally, or perhaps even more, appalled that Hamilton College in this state has invited that person to participate in a forum. It is wrong. There is a difference between freedom of speech and inviting a bigoted terrorist supporter."

i am sorry. no. there is not.

speaking from an un-bias perspective....

speaking is one thing. which he has the right to say and believe whatever he wants. if we go and try to sensor what he has to say, then by all rights our country is very comparable to nazi germany.

the idea that they are "appalled" that they invited him to participate in a forum because of his perspective on current events is extraordinarily offensive to me. i mean, isn't the whole point to annalize ideas and theories equally? ,OH! wait. SORRY! ethics is OBJECTIVE. sorry i forgot. censor me now. because i have something to say that might offend you!! i might say something like... "Bush is a bastard son of a broken puppet" which of course, makes me a terrorist. equal rights does not apply only when you want it to. its not like he is going to blow something up. he is only speaking his mind. as hard as it is to believe, there is a difference.

asides, of course, from the crushing affect on your current, fixed belief system. people get offended the most when someone makes valid points that contradict what they believe.

ok. sorry, maybe that was somewhat bias.

from a bias perspective.

he is right. many of the current events in our country are comparable to nazi germany. bush is an evil evil man. and even before bush, if our country did not go and stick our nose in events that we did not belong in, 9/11 would of never happened. we have been fucking shit up for decades. of course something was bound to eventually happen on our turf. it was inevitable. but our country is very naive and arrogant. we are fat lazy fuckers. we are right no matter what. especially if it involves christianity. we are lucky that more people did not die.. because by all rights, it could of been far worse. especially in comparison to what we have done elsewhere in the world. we got off easy from the perspective of death tolls in homeland terrorist attacks and i would not be surprised if we do not get more attacks in the future. even now, we are only making things worse.

we are doing the same thing now with christianity that we were doing with democracy vs. communism decades ago. if your country is not christian then your a fucking commie!!! kill kill kill for jesus.

homeland security my ass.

do you really think this country is any safer than it was before. i mean, jesus, these are "terrorists" (terrorists being in quotes because it is SUBJECTIVE) why would they follow the rules. most of the regulations for "homeland security" only apply to people who are already following government regulations.

however, now look at the current state of things. the right wing finally had the excuse that they needed to lock down on society and push their perspectives and power onto the population in the ways that they have been attempting to for years. the patriot act is not anything new. if i recall correctly from my research, it was actually first attempted to pass almost a decade or more ago. (or at least something extraordinarily similar to it)

land of the free my fucking ass. when a guy goes and speaks and receives death threats for his own personal opinion is that cold day in hell in my opinion.

i can not reiterate how unacceptable i feel the situation is in our country and in the countries whose business we are fucking into without just cause.

so what about the terrorists?

what about us!

if we have no rights then the terrorists have won. the have succeeded. that is the punishment to our society.

the current state of our politics is unacceptable. something has to be done. but as near as i can tell, it is only going to be getting worse.

unfortunately i don't know what really can be done. until enough people pull their heads out of their asses, we are fucked. Indefinitely...

ok. i am done ranting now.

[Melicious Scam]

the current state of our politics is unacceptable. something has to be done. but as near as i can tell, it is only going to be getting worse.

unfortunately i don't know what really can be done. until enough people pull their heads out of their asses, we are fucked. Indefinitely...

ok. i am done ranting now.

Tell people about what is going on. Educate people who don't understand what is happenening. Post on forums like this one. Make booklets and pass them out. send mass emails requesting people send them on, if you have a myspace account, post a bulletin, or post on any live journal. hand out fliers with the subject matter on them, stick them to cars, trucks, place them in mail boxes, or sneak them into newspapers, start debates and conversations about it. Half of these are very hard to do considering time, money, work, ect. ... but that doesn't mean that you can't talk about it. and it doesn't mean that because no one posts doesn't mean they aren't reading it. break down the walls and make people think.

[elasticwings]

Post on forums like this one. Make booklets and pass them out. send mass emails requesting people send them on, if you have a myspace account, post a bulletin, or post on any live journal. hand out fliers with the subject matter on them, stick them to cars, trucks, place them in mail boxes, or sneak them into newspapers, start debates and conversations about it.

Mass mailing is not acceptable for any reason. I freaking hate mass email and/or those stupid messenger spams that have forward this to eveyone on your list attached to the bottom. I usually end up blocking messages from people that forward that crap to me. I'm not trying to be an ass or anything. I just don't think that is the proper method of which to distribute an idea. Holding conversation in public areas wouldn't be bad I don't think. People are naturally drawn to groups for various reasons. You would probably have a better chance of having somebody actually listen to what you're saying.

[Jack]

Mass mailing is not acceptable for any reason.

Seriously.

[Melicious Scam]

It was just an idea. Mass emails do suck. Myspace is better for bulletins.

[Vampilot]

Balance>
Thanks..
I've been looking for that..
-V

[4X541N7]

the current state of our politics is unacceptable. something has to be done. but as near as i can tell, it is only going to be getting worse.

unfortunately i don't know what really can be done. until enough people pull their heads out of their asses, we are fucked. Indefinitely...

ok. i am done ranting now.

Tell people about what is going on. Educate people who don't understand what is happenening. Post on forums like this one. Make booklets and pass them out. send mass emails requesting people send them on, if you have a myspace account, post a bulletin, or post on any live journal. hand out fliers with the subject matter on them, stick them to cars, trucks, place them in mail boxes, or sneak them into newspapers, start debates and conversations about it. Half of these are very hard to do considering time, money, work, ect. ... but that doesn't mean that you can't talk about it. and it doesn't mean that because no one posts doesn't mean they aren't reading it. break down the walls and make people think.

Education is irrelivent...Useless...& futile...I'm not going on one of my 'Revolution' rants...I'm gonna rant about something else...Something that makes my 'Revolution' rants make a little more sense...

People are blind...At an early age, we are taught out ideals, morals, ethics...We are taught 'right' & wrong' by people that are ot the authority on such things...No one is...Therefore, we are taught propaganda...Spoon-fed flawed logic...Not to say that killing is right, or charity is wrong...Just stateing the truth...that, ultimately, it's flawed...Somewhere....

So, with this said...As we start to develop our own senses of self...We draw upon these rationalizations...Feed from the logic that we have be assaulted with for over a decade...The groundwork is laid, & there's nothing you can do about it...

Christians spawn Christians...Republicans spawn Republicans...etc..Not to say that there aren't exceptions...Just that as a majority...As a whole assumption...That's how it falls...Now, for an example of an exception...My father is a Baptist...I am an Atheist Agnostic...My father is in most respects, a Rupublican...I am a 'Liberal' Independent...I make my own choices...I think that both major parties are flawed...& both have the same agenda...They just take some different platforms, so as to get both all votes...Not that those votes matter...But that's another kettle of fish...

To sum all of this up...People aren't going to listen to you 'lies' & propaganda'...They just won't...If anyone listens to you...The thoughts are already there...You don't have to say a word...The people of America, just want to 'live happily ever after'...We don't want to think...We don't want to argue...We just want to be happy...& we, as a whole, are willing to go to extreme routes of ignorance, to do that...So, until it becomes so painfully obvious of what the Government is doing...

"We Are All Happy To Live In America"

[Melicious Scam]

the current state of our politics is unacceptable. something has to be done. but as near as i can tell, it is only going to be getting worse.

unfortunately i don't know what really can be done. until enough people pull their heads out of their asses, we are fucked. Indefinitely...

ok. i am done ranting now.

Tell people about what is going on. Educate people who don't understand what is happenening. Post on forums like this one. Make booklets and pass them out. send mass emails requesting people send them on, if you have a myspace account, post a bulletin, or post on any live journal. hand out fliers with the subject matter on them, stick them to cars, trucks, place them in mail boxes, or sneak them into newspapers, start debates and conversations about it. Half of these are very hard to do considering time, money, work, ect. ... but that doesn't mean that you can't talk about it. and it doesn't mean that because no one posts doesn't mean they aren't reading it. break down the walls and make people think.

To sum all of this up...People aren't going to listen to you 'lies' & propaganda'...They just won't...If anyone listens to you...The thoughts are already there...You don't have to say a word...[/u][/i].

Yes, the thoughts are already there, for the most part. However, if they already have an idea what is going on, but they don't have the information to find what they are looking for, and you give it to them.... then you helped one person figure out how they feel about the issue at hand. then they will probably be inclined to learn more..... they gain knowledge about the subject and want to talk about it. thus creating some sort of chain... from one person to another..
even if you just touch one person and expand their mind from an idea that they already had, it is still at least one person. you made one person think.... and that is what counts.