Is freedom of speech destructive to liberals?

[doctorgonzo]

The bottom line is that you like Coulter, so you don't think there is anything wrong with the language she uses. That is perfectly fine. But it is far better to simply admit it than to start getting into the minutiae of what is "slander" and what is "invective." Calling somebody the mistress of Adolf Hitler simply doesn't accomplish anything, regardless of how it is used in context. Just because it sells books doesn't make it right, either. Especially if it is in a wholly inaccurate book like hers.

If I say to somebody, "Listen, birdbrain, you aren't thinking this through," they probably aren't going to think that it is fine because it is "invective" as opposed to "slander." You don't need the negativity of calling a person a name. Whether you are arguing that a person is a birdbrain, and thus their arguments are invalid, or you are just comparing them to a birdbrain doesn't really matter.

I disagree with your characterization of what liberals believe, because there is no such thing as a plain "liberal," any more than there is such a thing as a "conservative." I know of a lot of "conservatives" who believe that the individual is too immoral to make their own decisions, and thus it is the role of the government to put Christian theology into law so people make the "right" decisions. I know leftists who are anarchists. Personally, I tend towards the less government side, preferring that the government do a few things that need to be done well, instead of doing a bunch of things in a mediocre fashion.

[Paul Victorey]

Tim, she called liberals "fifth columnists". During the Spanish civil war, Gen. Emilio Mola was advancing on Madrid with four columns of men, but claimed he had a "fifth column" made up of people from the city of Madrid itself who would fight for him.

So, from the beginning, the 5th column has meant people who take up arms against their own government, and actively work to destroy it. That IS a capital crime, and blanketly accusing people of treason (there is no possible definition of fifth columnist that doesn't imply the person is a traitor to their government) is most certainly slander.

If I wanted to hear childish namecalling, I'd go to any playground in America. Any good arguments she could ever make are nullified by the juvenile manner of her writing. If she can't intelligently debate and win arguments by thought, and not namecalling, she should keep her drivel to herself instead of subjecting the rest of the world to it.

If she truly is intelligent enough to win arguments directly, then she should, because the namecalling adds nothing and subtracts a lot. The only person I think less of due to her namecalling is her.

Personally, I think it's sad that people never seem to outgrow the love of namecalling, and sadder still that people want to read that kind of thing.

[bigpuma]

Originally posted by TimPoet It is witty and creative and roughshod to use invective but it is immoral and illegal to slander.

Let me get this straight it is ok to call people names if you disagree with them but only immoral if you slander them? I think you and I have a different opinion of morality. I am not a religious person Timpoet but what do you think a priest would say if you asked him if it is ok to call someone a name like birdbrain if you disagree with his/her point of view? You may be right when you say Coulter is invective and not slanderous but I think they are both immoral if not both illegal.

[drisley]

The fact that you guys are debating Coulter like this is proof of her success. Keep it up - it keeps her in business.

BTW, was Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot?" slander, too? Hell, at least Coulter can use adult words to insult someone rather than playground talk.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by drisley BTW, was Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot?" slander, too? Hell, at least Coulter can use adult words to insult someone rather than playground talk.

Sure it was, and I will freely admit that I found it funny. I also freely admit that it isn't nice to refer to somebody in that way. I'm not perfect, and I am not above lowbrow humor. But at least I don't get into debates about what the definition of "slander" or "invective" or "is" is. I don't need to rationalize my immature moments.

[Paul Victorey]

Her adult speech only makes it worse -- it shows she is intelligent enough that she could probably be a good writer if she just gave up the namecalling.

An unintelligent person insults because they can't come up with a real argument; for an intelligent person to stoop to that level is sad, because they should be capable of so much more.

[drisley]

Good Call. You and I have a little more in common than I thought.

Ann Coulter doesn't bother me, although as a conservative, I will admit I sometimes cringe at some of her statements. Calling people "traitor" at the drop of a dime just pisses me off. But, I get a real charge out of left-wingers getting all up in arms in response to her. Their reaction is why she gets paid so much! The best thing they could do for themselves if to shut up and let her vent.

[Paul Victorey]

As a conservative, I cringe at ALL of her statements. She makes conservatives look like idiot naysayers who can't think for themselves, who can't create anything or do anything besides try to mock other people. She never tries to build anything, she never works to try to bring people together by highlighting the shared values of differing groups. She never tries to work towards a compromise or bring people to see her point of view. All she does is destroy things. Instead of trying to unify the people, she tries to divide them even more. Instead of working with people who disagree with her, she mocks them and tries to work against them.

Instead of benefitting the conservative cause, she makes conservatives look like fools, and she harms the conservative cause more than she helps it. Nobody benefits from a nation that is divided against itself. Nothing positive comes from driving the wedge between liberal and conservative deeper. Nobody wins when everybody loses.

[doctorgonzo]

She doesn't bother me either. To me, she is the four-year old who yells swear words in public to get attention. She can do that as much as she wants, and if she can get rich off of it, that says something bad about our population, not her. She is just fulfilling a demand that is obviously there.

The only thing that bothers me is when people take her stuff seriously, especially in the face of her more obvious lies. It is one thing to say, "Yeah, I like her. Sure, she twists facts to her own viewpoint, but she makes me laugh and that's entertainment." It is quite another to take her word as gospel. That is no good, liberal or conservative.

I like her too. She makes it easy to argue against conservatives. I disagree with just about everything she believes, but I also hope that she keeps on opening her mouth. The treasures that come out!

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by doctorgonzo Sure it was, and I will freely admit that I found it funny. I also freely admit that it isn't nice to refer to somebody in that way. I'm not perfect, and I am not above lowbrow humor. But at least I don't get into debates about what the definition of "slander" or "invective" or "is" is. I don't need to rationalize my immature moments.

So it's funny to say Rush Limbaugh is stupid and fat, neither of which are true anymore, but it is terrible to say Whitman is a birdbrain or Jeffords is a half-wit? Ya can't have it both ways.
There is no debate about invective and slander, that was settled for us by Webster, they are called facts, useful things, those. But bringing up the crafty and arrogant definer of what is is was a big mistake. Clinton has nothing on Webster.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by TimPoet So it's funny to say Rush Limbaugh is stupid and fat, neither of which are true anymore, but it is terrible to say Whitman is a birdbrain or Jeffords is a half-wit? Ya can't have it both ways.

Sure you can. Something can be both funny and terrible at the same time. That's what a lot of comedy is based upon. Yes, it is terrible to call people birdbrains or big fat idiots, but it certainly can be funny at the same time. I just wouldn't defend it by trying to say that one kind of insult is more appropriate than another. No, invective and slander aren't the same thing, but neither are appropriate in civil discussion, and I wouldn't use either of them.

At least Al Franken was a bona fide comedy writer. What else would you expect from an SNL writer?

[WJWheels]

The right to free speech is no more important than the right not to listen. Also the right to free speech is just that; not to be confused with the right to speak any place or at any time. Those variables may be contolled by someone else.

Slander is a legal term and is actionable. If not actionable (whether action is taken or not), it's not "slander".