AmericanPapist Comments
I'm glad the police there are planning to do something about it. Hopefully none of the WYD pilgrims will ruin into these people.
I trust that the Pope will put forth a powerful argument against what these people represent as he has for the past three years. However, while I in no way condone what these groups are planning for the pilgrims, I'm also a staunch believer in the right to free speech. Now I don't know Australian speech laws, but since it's a liberal democracy and Freedom House approves of its freedoms, I can assume that the most important right for a democracy is liberally protected as it is here in the States (yes, I'm aware that there are exceptions even here). Hence, I'm always reluctant to see speech rights restricted because of the potential slippery slope. What if Australia decides next that pro-life protests at clinics are deemed an "annoyance or inconvenience" to the staff and patients of a clinic? The precedent has now been set to silence such protests. Again, I don't condone the actions of these groups at WYD, just as I don't condone burning the American flag or Fred Phelps protesting soldiers' funerals in order to spew his hatred of homosexuals, but I do respect everyone's right to speak freely, even those with views with which I disagree. The beauty is that I have the same right to ignore them or engage them with my own ideas. If I lived Down Under, I'd be uneasy about this development.
Throwing objects and screaming at people engaged in peaceful prayer. Right. That's really what the Framers had in mind when they protected free speech.
Throwing objects? I went and read the original LifeSiteNews article again, and there's no mention of the word "throwing," so I'm not certain where that's coming from. As for "screaming," the Founders didn't mention at what volume debate has to be conducted. As I said above, though, I don't know what Australian speech laws state, so it could be different there. The concept of free speech isn't designed to protect the views we agree with, but rather opposing views. Again, the primary concern here is once a government starts limiting speech in a free society, especially on the vague premise of "annoyance or inconvenience," where does it stop? Why an exception in one case but not in others?
Come on, if i waz in charge i would get the hoses and start spraying them...we shouldnt let their unhappiness ruin our happiness!
"Throwing objects? I went and read the original LifeSiteNews article again, and there's no mention of the word "throwing," so I'm not certain where that's coming from." Try reading some other reports on the situation.
"As for 'screaming,' the Founders didn't mention at what volume debate has to be conducted." Most folks I know don't confuse 'screaming' with 'speech'. If you do, perhaps a look at several dozen municipal nuisance ordinances, wherein volume is an issue, would be enlightening.
"As I said above, though, I don't know what Australian speech laws state, so it could be different there." Good grief. Do you really think you need to point out for us that you are not an expert on Australian speech law, lest readers be mislead?
"The concept of free speech isn't designed to protect the views we agree with, but rather opposing views." Is this meant to be condescending, or does it just come out that way?
"Again, the primary concern here is once a government starts limiting speech in a free society, especially on the vague premise of 'annoyance or inconvenience,' where does it stop?" Well, gee, you got me there. I guess no where. So anyone who disagrees with your concerns must be in favor of full statist represession of speech?
"Why an exception in one case but not in others?" Maturity and experience are good guides in making prudential decisions. Without those, tho, I suppose one must assume that the only choice is between unbridled license or total repression.
I don't like how ambiguous the language is. This has too much potential to set a precedent for 'protecting' other groups that we may not be so favorable toward. What would we be saying if the police received this power to protect Planned Parenthood? Want to say a Rosary in front of the building? Too bad. It's an annoyance to employees and patients. Want to write an article about the dangers of abortion to women? Too bad, it's inconvenient to Planned Parenthood's finances.
Fair questions, Matt. The first thing folks should realize is that you are not asking hypotheticals. "Free speech" has been exaggerated out of all reason to the point where, for the most part, only the radical left is actually protected anymore. If, therefore, part of the return to normalcy (which I hope for, but don't hold my breath for) is for traditional-value groups to get a little protection for a change, I say, fine by me.
Precisely, Matt. In both of my preceding posts, I voiced concern with the language, and even stated the potential for anti-abortion protesters to be silenced. In my view, it's better to give these WYD protesters their opportunity to speak in order to guarantee that those speaking on behalf of the Church are protected in the future. The wording of this current ordinance sets a precedent that is highly troubling, hence my defense for these people.
Praying the rosary is not a disturbance or an annoyance, unless ur a protestant of course.
In case anyone was confused as to Mr. Peter’s intentions, he absolutely meant to be pompous and condescending throughout his post. Apparently he lives in a utopia where the courts always demonstrate “maturity” and the wisdom of their “experience” and might never be in danger of, let’s say, discovering a right to privacy that allows for the slaughter of unborn children. In such a world one need never fear the slippery slope that Mr. Nathan warns of, but here on Planet Earth we have sadly been the victims of such judicial imperialism and must be on our guard. The great thing is that because Mr. Peters is who he is, I fully expect to have this comment censored. Irony, anyone?
As a law student, I don't like this. Way, way too vague and slippery-slope.
And as a Catholic, I don't like it either - if people are smoothing the path in front of us, how will we get the training we need to climb the narrow way up the mountain of the Lord?
Wow, therese.
Yeah. Right. Chuckle chuckle.
I’d have to agree with Therese that Mr. Peters’ tone was very condescending and hostile. I was quite surprised by it actually. I thought Nathan’s post was perfectly appropriate and made a good point. I was about to say something myself, but she said it first.
Chuckle chuckle means that I found the content or the form of the post not worth responding to. "Theresa" reminded me of those folks would write ratty letters to Ann Landers and end by saying "PS: I dare you to print this, but you never will." Well, she would print it, along with the dopey dare. We all got a chuckle out of it, and then, as now, most such folks hid behind functional anonymity, so their embarrasment was private.
Whoever "Nathan" is, he or she has a long history here of posting quixotic defenses of questionable points. Worse, he's pretty free with insults toward persons he doesn't know from Adam. He once spent an afternoon in Detroit, and then posted that our auxiliary bishop Earl Boyea must be thrilled to leave the city for Lansing. I live halfway between those two towns, and I know Bp. Boyea pretty well. "Nathan's" attribution of relief to Boyea was insulting to him, and to the rest of us who labor under very difficult circumstances, circumstances that Nathan could fly out of. I called him or her on it, and told him he should apologize. I never saw one. Did I miss it?
When N hauled out "free speech" to protect hecklers of kids praying (we can be sure that is exactly what is going to happen based on WYD histories), I sighed and said , "There he goes again." His or her second reply merited the content-oriented reply I gave it. Folks can agree or disagree, but I think I'm as well versed, if not better versed than most folks posting so far, on the law of free speech and its impact in society. What gets me is people taking a bit of truth and parlaying it into a position whereby, once again, govenrment is paralyzed from doing ANYTHING to protect the free exercise of religion, well, short of arresting murderers.
Anyway, when I go after ID-hidden postings (which I don't do nearly as often as I am tempted to) I at least address myself to what they actually said, like I did with "Nathan" up there. In return they or their equally anonymous defenders (assuming they are different people, which htey might not be) fret about "tone", and ignore the content of what was said. It's a pretty useless exercise, most of the time, and I engage it for the benefit of third parties. As indeed this very post is.
In general, though, I don't debate anonymous posters. If they don't care enough to sign real identities, their opinions aren't worth replying to.
When individuals replace emotion with rational thought, they find any rational thought condescending and offensive.
If you disagree with Ed, do so by addressing his stated positions.
What's quixotic about defending the rights of those who disagree with you so that in return, your rights are protected as well?
I made a joke about Detroit that simply happened to include Bishop Boyea. I didn't insult him, or at least that wasn't my intention, so if you feel that I was maliciously targeting the bishop, then yes, I apologize. I'm not going to apologize for poking a little fun at Detroit. I'm certainly not the first person to do so, and Detroit's certainly not the only place in America to be the butt of a joke. Any late night comedian will demonstrate that.
I don't see why it's necessary to reveal my identity. I'm real (and a he, by the way), but if there's anything you'd like to know about me--educational background, economic status--I'm willing to share if you want to ask. I just don't see the point in volunteering such information to strangers. Since I will remain anonymous, I won't expect any more responses from you to my posts. You don't like me, and that's okay, but I'm sincere when I say: take care of yourself, Ed Peters.
There's nothing to be gained by carrying on conversations with a voice behind the curtain. I appreciate your apology toward our bishop. Since I sign my name, I know to weigh my words before they come out. It's an advantage anonymous posters don't enjoy, though are more careful than others anyway.
Ok, just wanted to apologize for the tone of my comment from this morning. I still believe that "Nathan" raised a perfectly valid question in a perfectly civil manner, but perhaps his past commentbox crimes merited the attack from Mr. Peters - I'm not familiar with either Nathan or Mr. Peters' posting history so I can't speak to that. Either way, I shouldn't have responded to what I perceived as over-the-top rudeness with more incivility. The crack about the American Papist censoring the comment is what I most regret, as AMP wasn't involved at all. It was a dumb joke and I'm sorry for having made it. Please allow me to clear up any confusion regarding my identity. Not being familiar with commentbox etiquette, I followed what seemed to be the norm and used my first name. I fear that has caused Mr. Peters some confusion and even called into question the gender of the mysterious "Nathan." My name is Therese Marie Pennefather. I'm not "Theresa" or "Teresa." I promise you that I have never met and do not know the true identity of the one we call "Nathan." Anyway, regarding the subject of the post, I'm still not sure what is so crazy about being just a little concerned about government encroaching little by little on our freedoms even when, as in this case, such encroachment happens to be convenient for Catholics. The idea of the ACLU or other left-leaning groups getting to decide what anyone can and can't do based on what is "inconvenient" or "annoying" to them is a truly frightening scenario for any freedom-loving person.
Again, we see that using one's own name has a cathartic effect on the impulsiveness that lurks in most hearts. Real people warrant genuine respect. I have nothing to add on the subject matter of the free speech debate.
Dear LCD,
I’m not sure who you’re referring to, but it sounds like it could be me, since I called EP’s post “condescending,” so I’ll explain what I posted. I objected to EP’s way of expressing himself, and I think that’s legit; people get banned from comment boxes for being uncivil. I happen to think EP is the one who is letting emotion get in the way of reason – probably because he has a history with Nathan and is automatically annoyed by him. I don’t know what kinds of things N has written here in the past – and maybe a lot of people reading this don’t – so EP’s reaction just seemed way out of line. I don’t think that contributes to discussion in a constructive way – it just puts people on the defensive and fogs the argument being made. For example, EP says: “Good grief. Do you really think you need to point out for us that you are not an expert on Australian speech law, lest readers be mislead?” I honestly don’t even know why someone would waste time addressing something like that. It seems like EP was just trying to take a shot at him, suggesting that no one could POSSIBLY think that Nathan was an expert. I think N was just trying to cover his bases. While EP may be able to discern someone’s profession and background through the cloak of “functional anonymity,” I don’t think most of us can, so I don’t know why Nathan or anyone else deserves to be mocked for simply admitting that he is not an expert in an area. EP later says: “Well, gee, you got me there. I guess no where. So anyone who disagrees with your concerns must be in favor of full statist represession of speech?” That drips with snarkiness and, because it is a straw man, doesn’t actually answer Nathan’s question. It is interesting that Matt G. raises the same concerns as Nathan and gets a totally different – polite – response. So, yes – I am objecting to the tone and the fact that this seemed more like a personal attack than a real attempt to discuss ideas. I do also disagree with Mr. Peters’ perspective on this, but I don’t really have anything new to offer to what’s been said here, and I’m certainly no law expert. (Oops, I said it – I’m not an expert.)
Finally, I don’t understand what Mr. Peters means by “ID-hidden postings.” I think most people use their real first names. But, even if they use their full names, is there any way to prove whether they are the real names or not? If that is a big concern for him, he should probably avoid comment boxes altogether – (I think I will in the future!) – or start a campaign to change the blog standard. I'm not trying to start a fight here. On the contrary, I am just trying to ensure that discussion remains fair and civil.
Commenting by HaloScan
