Talk Elections

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-speech/


If American politicians were logically consistent, and they aren't, the same guys that took offense (and rightfully so) for Sarah Palin having the blame for the Tucson shootings leveled at her would attack Paul on the same basis. But they won't.

I am and have always been skeptical of the Pauls, and this makes me more so now than ever.

Nothing good can come of a statement starting like this.

"Liberty for the powerful, tyranny for the rest" is essentially people like Rand Paul's guiding motto.

The statement is barely understandable.

You, sir, are obviously an enemy of freedom and the Constitution. >:(

I know......but his core constituency understands him -

()

The Rubes.

Uhh... Rand, you're supposed to be a libertarian, not a fascist.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater.

It doesn't criminalize speech.

False analogy. "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" would only apply if, say, a sidewalk preacher were yelling about FEMA death camps in the middle of a New Orleans hurricane. This would be more akin to jailing people for listening to that sidewalk preacher discuss "Second Amendment solutions".

     Yeah, this is rather ridiculous. Calling for the imprisonment of people who make speeches calling for the violent overthrow the government would be bad enough, but calling for the imprisonment of people who attend their speeches? Maybe he also thinks we should outlaw sedition again. ::)

The "they" might be those people giving the speeches, not attending.  I really think that you should look at contacts in these cases.

I will quote the pertinent part of Paul's statement:


There is no room for equivocation on this issue. Paul not only supports outlawing 'sedition', in keeping with the great American tradition of Woodrow Wilson, but in outlawing attending speeches that promote 'sedition'. The former is bad enough; the latter is odious to any man who loves his freedom and wants to keep it. If Paul has his way (and there is no reason to expect he won't some time in the future), I will resist it with every measure of my ability to do so, and I'd advise others who are conscious of their rights as sovereign individuals to do the same.

Or...


I would take someone, not in the abstract, planning to violently overthrow the government, as being unprotected free speech.

Leaving aside the fact that you take it wrongly, why even mention anyone "attending speeches" if his intent is 'only' to arrest those giving the speeches? "(S)omeone attending speeches" ought never have been brought up if Paul's intent is only to clamp down on those actually doing the speechifying, which is pretty self-evidently not the case from the quotation in question.

He might be saying, we should be taking action against people that actively propose overthrowing the government, and we should look carefully at the associates of those people.  And yet, I think it is fine to look at "known contacts" of people (this from a guy who had dinner with a DA last week).

In other words, you agree with me exactly: Rand's stated policy preferences are intended to curtail the freedom of speech and criminalize certain modes of political speech. You're simply aiming to soften the rhetorical blow against Paul. I can't let you do it.

Guilt by association is never fine; we've learned that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army-McCarthy_hearings) through our (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918) long collective experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act) on the subject. Profiling is inherently an abrogation of an individual's liberty of action and of conscience. If I attend a rally by the Ku Klux Klan which calls for the violent overthrow of the ZOG, I remain well within my rights as long as I do not act out on that rhetoric. You confuse, as most security-Statists do, cause and effect: listening to "hate speech" does not motivate people to do anything. Those who already hold to an idea gravitate towards speakers who reinforce their ideas.

This is wrong. And you know it.

Libertarian hero! Libertarian hero! Libertarian hero!

This statement is taken a bit out of context, IMO. Though that does not make what Sen. Paul said any more or less correct.

I think what he was getting at was that we should not allow people to openly preach violence against the nation.

Now, I disagree with that statement and I believe that people should be allowed to say what they want, but Sen. Paul doesn't want to see acts of violence committed against his country, which is justifiable.

So much for Rand Paul being Libertarian...

I don't think anyone who sits down and seriously looks at the policies either Paul advocates can come to the logical position that either are libertarian in any real sense of the term. Both of them adhere far more closely to paleoconservatism. The problem is that paleoconservatism and libertarianism are so closely associated in the popular mind as to be indistinguishable. That said, I'd argue that the Paul pere is, ironically enough, much closer to being a legitimate libertarian than his son. I dislike Rand and I always have.

     Yeah, that's the issue. I could accept Rand Paul as being the most libertarian Senator that the state of Kentucky would probably ever dream of electing, but I'd rather not have this guy be treated as some sort of spokesman for the libertarian movement.