Kerry defends our 'Right to be Stupid'

[theorangebluewinagain]

Of coarse Kerry supports stupidity, it is the foundation of the democratic party. If Americans were only intelligent beings then the democratic party would cease to exist. Think about it.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

river and dangole...your narrow focus on whether Kerry was literally or technically accurate about whether we have "the right to be stupid" or not is...well, kind of stupid. I respect your partisan loyalty to Kerry but can't you take off your big "D" hats for a second and acknowledge that he is deserving of some criticism for this lame comment he made?

Look at the big picture - Kerry is giving a talk about free speech to some students from Germany, which is a country that does not have the full range of free speech rights that we do. That's important. Considering that context, don't you think he should've given them a better explanation of the benefits of full, unfettered free speech?

dangole - you keep saying that Kerry was right because in America we can say 2+2=5 if we want to. Okay. Fair enough. Technically he was correct. But honestly - is that the great selling point of unlimited free speech that you would be pitching to people in a country that doesn't have it? "Hey folks check this out - in America you can stand on a corner and yell out 2+2=5 all day long! You can even yell 2+2=7 if you want! Freakin' seven! Come on, how kickass is that!?!"

I don't see anybody saying Kerry should be fired over this or anything crazy like that. At the end of the day it'll be filed in the "who cares?" category. But just for the purpose of discussion, does anyone here disagree that our Secretary of State should strive to do a better job of explaining fundamental American rights to foreign audiences?

I was 'debating' with Lawdog that expressions of stupidity are protected under the First Amendment. Near as I can tell, Lawdog doesn't agree with me, but I am glad you do. As for what Kerry said in Germany, yes, let's file it under the 'who cares?' category.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

I was 'debating' with Lawdog that expressions of stupidity are protected under the First Amendment. Near as I can tell, Lawdog doesn't agree with me, but I am glad you do. As for what Kerry said in Germany, yes, let's file it under the 'who cares?' category.

Translation: "Of course I know that what Kerry said was lame but I'm not going to admit it because he's a Democrat. Anyways...this is America and he has the right to be stupid!"

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

river and dangole...your narrow focus on whether Kerry was literally or technically accurate about whether we have "the right to be stupid" or not is...well, kind of stupid. I respect your partisan loyalty to Kerry but can't you take off your big "D" hats for a second and acknowledge that he is deserving of some criticism for this lame comment he made?

Look at the big picture - Kerry is giving a talk about free speech to some students from Germany, which is a country that does not have the full range of free speech rights that we do. That's important. Considering that context, don't you think he should've given them a better explanation of the benefits of full, unfettered free speech?

dangole - you keep saying that Kerry was right because in America we can say 2+2=5 if we want to. Okay. Fair enough. Technically he was correct. But honestly - is that the great selling point of unlimited free speech that you would be pitching to people in a country that doesn't have it? "Hey folks check this out - in America you can stand on a corner and yell out 2+2=5 all day long! You can even yell 2+2=7 if you want! Freakin' seven! Come on, how kickass is that!?!"

I don't see anybody saying Kerry should be fired over this or anything crazy like that. At the end of the day it'll be filed in the "who cares?" category. But just for the purpose of discussion, does anyone here disagree that our Secretary of State should strive to do a better job of explaining fundamental American rights to foreign audiences?

Germany has mostly a full range of free speech with a few exceptions of pure stupidity (Nazis, people demonstrating at funerals, and in some places in the country, Communist symbols). Kerry was explaining to a group of people why we let things like Neo-Nazi parades or the Fred Phelps junk occur while these acts of sheer stupidity would be banned over there. Unless you really want to argue that these things aren't purely stupid, this is the major difference in speech rights here and there.

Here is the full quote, which is an obvious allusion given the context of German students, to National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

"People have sometimes wondered about why our Supreme Court allows one group or another to march in a parade even though it's the most provocative thing in the world and they carry signs that are an insult to one group or another.

"The reason is, that's freedom, freedom of speech. In America you have a right to be stupid — if you want to be. And you have a right to be disconnected to somebody else if you want to be.

"And we tolerate it. We somehow make it through that. Now, I think that's a virtue. I think that's something worth fighting for."

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Germany has mostly a full range of free speech with a few exceptions of pure stupidity (Nazis, people demonstrating at funerals, and in some places in the country, Communist symbols). Kerry was explaining to a group of people why we let things like Neo-Nazi parades or the Fred Phelps junk occur while these acts of sheer stupidity would be banned over there. Unless you really want to argue that these things aren't purely stupid, this is the major difference in speech rights here and there.

Here is the full quote, which is an obvious allusion given the context of German students, to National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

Do you or do you not agree that that our Secretary of State should strive to do a better job of explaining fundamental American rights to foreign audiences?

For example, WTF does this sentence mean? "And you have a right to be disconnected to somebody else if you want to be."

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Translation: "Of course I know that what Kerry said was lame but I'm not going to admit it because he's a Democrat. Anyways...this is America and he has the right to be stupid!"

No, I'm fine with what he said. He's right, and we all know it.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Do you or do you not agree that that our Secretary of State should strive to do a better job of explaining fundamental American rights to foreign audiences?

For example, WTF does this sentence mean? "And you have a right to be disconnected to somebody else if you want to be."

I think he did a fine job of explaining it. A bunch of cons are trying to make a big deal out of nothing, but what else is new.

Did you watch the clip? It's pretty obvious what he means. For example, you have the right to be a neo nazi and be 'disconnected' from people who are Jewish or black or whatever.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

I was 'debating' with Lawdog that expressions of stupidity are protected under the First Amendment. Near as I can tell, Lawdog doesn't agree with me, but I am glad you do. As for what Kerry said in Germany, yes, let's file it under the 'who cares?' category.

No you weren't.

You were strongly agreeing with Kerry that, supposedly floating about in the prenumbra of the 14th Amendment somewhere, is the inchoate right to be stupid . . . not that stupid expressions are somehow protected as free speech.

As shown, however, your "right to be stupid" remarks began to segue and indeed sought refuge and morphed into and / or were intentionally confused with, a quality of expression issue under the First Amendment.

Whether someone is "stupid" or acts "stupid," is a matter of status or behavior determined by someone's subjective judgment and not under an objective standard. If someone behaves "stupid[ly]", he is not invested with a particularized "right" to do so; at best, his acts are tolerated under a general sense of freedom - not otherwise conscripted by concrete, statutory definitions of prohibited ("stupid") acts. But in either case, no such "stupid" status is conferred as a matter of right.

If such a person wishes to remove all doubt about his status of stupidity by engaging in expressions under the First Amendment, that is entirely a different question. But it is a matter of subjective judgment, not of a status defined as a "right."

[dangolegators]

^^^ You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Lawdog88]

^^^ Straighten me out, then.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

^^^ Straighten me out, then.

On page one I said this:

Yes we are. And one of the things the First Amendment means on the street is you have the right to put your stupidity on full display so long as you aren't violating anyone else's rights by doing so.

Top of page 2 I said this:

I bolded the 'and what they mean on the real street' part. One of the things the first amendment 'means on the street' is you have the right to say stupid stuff, to express your stupidity.

Where have I ever said anything about the 14th amendment? From the very beginning I have been referring to this as a speech issue. You seem to think I am equating the right to be stupid with say, the right to be tall, or the right to be black. We have no control over those things. We do control our speech however, and the first amendment covers our right to say stupid, ignorant things.

[Lawdog88]

Now you are really twisting in your own web.

I said:

Originally Posted by Lawdog88
There is no right to be stupid, ignorant, or misinformed.

You said:

There's nothing that says you can't be any of these, which means you have the right to be them.

Undo that.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

I think he did a fine job of explaining it. A bunch of cons are trying to make a big deal out of nothing, but what else is new.

Did you watch the clip? It's pretty obvious what he means. For example, you have the right to be a neo nazi and be 'disconnected' from people who are Jewish or black or whatever.

Pure partisan hackery. The same words coming out of a Republican Secretary of State's mouth would've been mocked by you. And deservedly so. Mind you I'm a partisan too so if that happened I doubt I would've criticized the Republican Sec. of State for it. I probably would've just declined to comment on it. But I definitely would not have gone as far as you and river did by actually defending such poorly-worded remarks. I am marginally less partisan than you guys, at least.

Let's see just how far you're willing to go for your non-heroic war hero Kerry. Any comment on his defense of the legitimacy of Iran's government?

Kerry: Iran has an ‘elected’ government

Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday that Iran has an "elected" government, echoing a comment for which Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was pilloried in his confirmation hearing last month.

"Iran is a country with a government that was elected and that sits in the United Nations," Kerry said in France standing alongside French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. "And it is important for us to deal with nation-states in a way that acts in the best interests of all of us in the world."

The comment is similar to what Hagel said on Jan. 31 when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee Iran was "an elected, legitimate government, whether we agree or not."

Some might beg to differ with that assessment. The 2009 election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was widely suspected to be rigged. His challenger, Mir-Hossein Mousavi said so at the time and Iran saw days of unrest after Ahmadinejad was proclaimed to have secured 63 percent of the vote.

Vice President Joe Biden said on Meet the Press "there's some real doubt" whether Ahmadinejad won. "There's an awful lot of questions about how this election was run," he said. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at the time, "I think there are a number of factors that give us some concern about what we've seen." The Washington Post published an editorial detailing statistical evidence of fraud and abuse in the election results.

Hagel had to walk back his declaration that Iran was "an elected, legitimate government" after being challenged in the hearing by Democratic New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: "I can understand if you meant it's a legal entity that has international relations and has diplomatic relations, that is a member of the UN, I do not see Iran or the Iranian government as a legitimate government, and I'd like your thoughts on that," Gillibrand said.

"What I meant to say, should have said, it's recognizable," Hagel replied. "It's been recognized, is recognized at the United Nations. Most of our allies have embassies there. That is what I should have said."

Keep in mind that agreeing with Kerry on this one arguably means you disagree with those whose names are in bold type.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Now you are really twisting in your own web.

I said: You said: Undo that.

Really? Is that it? If you had any trouble understanding what I meant with that first post, I clarified it from the second post on. Do you understand what the 'right to say stupid stuff, to express your stupidity' (third post) means? That's speech. You don't understand that this is a speech issue, despite me having said it's a speech issue in virtually every post in this thread?

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Do you or do you not agree that that our Secretary of State should strive to do a better job of explaining fundamental American rights to foreign audiences?

For example, WTF does this sentence mean? "And you have a right to be disconnected to somebody else if you want to be."

His context was an explanation of the difference between fundamental rights in the US versus fundamental rights in Germany. The big difference is that in Germany, certain stupid opinions and actions are outlawed. While stupidity is certainly a subjective measure, I doubt you would find many reasonably mainstream people that would argue that Naziism or protesting at funerals about god hating gay people is a pretty stupid opinion/action.

He was arguing for our perspective, which is that rather than outlawing these stupid opinions, we allow people to reject them privately. And I am really not that concerned with showing Nazis or the Phelps crew much respect.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

His context was an explanation of the difference between fundamental rights in the US versus fundamental rights in Germany. The big difference is that in Germany, certain stupid opinions and actions are outlawed. While stupidity is certainly a subjective measure, I doubt you would find many reasonably mainstream people that would argue that Naziism or protesting at funerals about god hating gay people is a pretty stupid opinion/action.

He was arguing for our perspective, which is that rather than outlawing these stupid opinions, we allow people to reject them privately. And I am really not that concerned with showing Nazis or the Phelps crew much respect.

Well that's a nice "explanation" or spin or whatever. But what it amounts to is a "yes I agree" in answer to my question, "Do you or do you not agree that that our Secretary of State should strive to do a better job of explaining fundamental American rights to foreign audiences?" If you didn't agree then you wouldn't have felt the need to explain or paraphrase his remarks.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Pure partisan hackery. The same words coming out of a Republican Secretary of State's mouth would've been mocked by you. And deservedly so. Mind you I'm a partisan too so if that happened I doubt I would've criticized the Republican Sec. of State for it. I probably would've just declined to comment on it. But I definitely would not have gone as far as you and river did by actually defending such poorly-worded remarks. I am marginally less partisan than you guys, at least.

Let's see just how far you're willing to go for your non-heroic war hero Kerry. Any comment on his defense of the legitimacy of Iran's government?

Keep in mind that agreeing with Kerry on this one arguably means you disagree with those whose names are in bold type.

My comment is that Kirsten Gillibrand kicks ass. And that Kerry could have said this particular quote better. And that you most definitely are more partisan than I am.

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Any comment on his defense of the legitimacy of Iran's government?

Keep in mind that agreeing with Kerry on this one arguably means you disagree with those whose names are in bold type.

On that point, I profoundly disagree with Kerry. Not just because Iran's election was rigged, but because the election itself was a sham and the real leader of that government is a Islamic theocracy where the real ruler is Khamanei, not the President. The Iranian President is a rodeo clown, who distracts the Iranian citizenry with the impression of something resembling legitmacy to further the power of the Supreme Leader who is goring any possibility of actual freedoms with his horns.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Well that's a nice "explanation" or spin or whatever. But what it amounts to is a "yes I agree" in answer to my question, "Do you or do you not agree that that our Secretary of State should strive to do a better job of explaining fundamental American rights to foreign audiences?" If you didn't agree then you wouldn't have felt the need to explain or paraphrase his remarks.

That is a really weak argument.

I explained his remarks because you still don't seem to understand what was being said. Your inability to understand the statement is not Kerry's fault. It is more the fault of your partisanship.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

That is a really weak argument.

I explained his remarks because you still don't seem to understand what was being said. Your inability to understand the statement is not Kerry's fault. It is more the fault of your partisanship.

No, I understand it perfectly. As I've said all along, the issue is not that they were wholly inaccurate comments. The point is that it was a really weak way for the U.S. Secretary of State to sell the virtues of free speech to people in a country that allows a little less of it than we do. They were poorly-worded comments, as evidenced by your efforts to defend them by re-wording them instead of just saying, "I'm fine with what he said," like dangole did.