-I would shine the mirror right back on you, bud. The freedom of speech -includes the freedom to lie, unless the lie is material to a crime. And so -it should be.
"freedom of speech" is a silly phrase to throw around in this context. No one is suggesting that the government throw anyone in jail or censor them. The issue is whether telling untruths is a legitimate form of debate, a very different issue.
George W. Bush had the right to lie (or just stubbornly ignore the truth if he's stupid) about WMDs and 911. No one hear would applaud that kind of politics coming from the Right. Why should it be acceptable from the left?
Nathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
[mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 12:52 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Where we stand today
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
>
>
> -If you don't believe in free speech for your enemies, you don't believe
> in
> -the freedom of speech.
> -And it's legit to criticize SEIU, even though it's critical of the
> AFLack.
> -I know this jars your sensibilities, and it may indeed be misinformed
and
> -wrong, but Lacny's the problem in this one, not Lance.
>
> Michael, you are completely deaf or just so blindly ideological that it's
> pretty useless to say anything.
>
> Of course it's okay to criticize anyone. It's not okay to make up lies
as
> part of the criticism.
>
> Those are two different things. The fact that you can't tell the
> difference between them explains most of what's wrong with almost
> everything you say. There are folks on this list like Yoshie who I
> disagree with on most things, but they have the basic intelligence to
> recognize the difference between opinion and fact. You don't have that
> capability.
>
> Nathan Newman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
[mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:24 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Where we stand today
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
>
>
> -It's called free speech, Nate. And, anyway, it is certainly within the
> -bounds of reason to criticize the AFL-CIO for insufficient organizing.
> -You might want to rethink your own particular theory of truth. If I
> recall,
> -you are the one who thinks everything's on the right path. Not quite,
> eh?
>
> Michael-- the issue is not criticism of the AFL-CIO, a bizarre claim
since
> we are talking about SEIU's criticisms of the AFL-CIO. The issue is
> factual inaccuracies about whether Local 1199 in NY is a separate local
> from other locals with 1199 in their names.
>
> The idea that lies and falsehood is a form of free speech is just the Fox
> News version of truth. Hey, huge percentages of the population think
> Saddam Hussein was involved in planning 911. So if Fox repeats that idea
> as fact, they're just engaging in free speech, which is fine and dandy?
>
> Unfortunately, there are far too many LBOers who think making up facts is
> a
> form of ideological argument, and they really don't seem to be able to
> tell
> the difference between stating an opinion and making things up.
>
> Nathan Newman
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
[mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 8:36 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Where we stand today
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
>
> John Lacny wrote:
> >Christ, can you READ?
>
> -Why do you have to be so damned nasty? We know how you feel about this.
>
> Doug, your worry about ettiquette is reasonable, but you should be more
> bothered that folks like Lance are spouting completely untrue statements
> and then spouting opinions based on those fake facts. Do we really have
> to
> speak nicely to the leftwing equivalent of FoxNews? Is everyone entitled
> not just to respect for their own opinions but to their own false facts?
>
> I think you should demand not just etiquette from folks but a reasonable
> basis of knowledge before people claim things are true that are just not.
> Everyone screws up on a fact occasionally, but when the fact asserted--
as
> in Lance's contention that all the SEIU locals are a single centralized
> local -- is the main point being made, and it's reasserted even after
> being
> corrected, there is some right to frustration.
>
> Repeating a lie over and over again does not deserve respect or even
> politeness after a while.
>
> So if you are going to rap peoples knuckles for impoliteness, how about a
> bit of discipline on those who spread clearly false information?
>
> Nathan Newman
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk