Well intended but wrong headed. OP/ED

[Brian37]

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/08/californi ... peech.html

I really cannot stand the equation to bigotry in the face of criticism or blasphemy. This is bullshit. While it may be true that some can hate without good reason, saying that no country is perfect nor their politicians or actions, is not bigotry. Everyone, including my believing family and friends have criticized me personally while not liking something I do, but I do not take it as if they hate me personally. This is the same stupid logic that caused Issac Hayes, after years of being part of a show (South Park) that criticized and blasphemed every race and religion, quit when they got to his Scientology. Israel does not do everything right anymore than America has. I'd advise my liberal friends that we had slavery, genocide of Native Americans, sexism, and imprisonment of Japanese Citizens. Without the ability to criticize, we do neither good for free speech of the majority or minority. Are there bigots who hate Israel? Yes, but that should not allow Israel or it's supporters the right to create taboos. To do such makes us no better than the fascist states that do censor.

[LikelyToBreak]

Brian37, thanks for bringing this to our attention.  I live in California and know there are many draconian laws here, but I didn't know about this monstrosity.  Freedom of speech is the right to say things which upset some people.  If it didn't upset people, there would be no need to have an amendment to allow it.  The ADL (Anti-Defamation League), have often labeled people anti-Semites for speaking out against Israeli policies.  So much so, sometimes I felt ashamed for not being on their list of anti-Semites.  This law is an affront to all freedom loving people in America.

[stromboli]

I'm surprised, this from a state like California. This smacks of Muslims against hate speech in Saudi Arabia or something. Very wrong headed. Good post.

[josephpalazzo]

The politicians in California could have been a beamlight on this: here was an opportunity to define what is anti-Semitism Vs what is legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. Instead, they went all out in putting every criticism into the basket of anti-Semitism. Not only were Palestinians groups not invited in these discussions, but also progressive Jewish groups. So one can only take this as one-sided argument. Hopefully in the long run, better heads will prevail.

[Brian37]

The politicians in California could have been a beamlight on this: here was an opportunity to define what is anti-Semitism Vs what is legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. Instead, they went all out in putting every criticism into the basket of anti-Semitism. Not only were Palestinians groups not invited in these discussions, but also progressive Jewish groups. So one can only take this as one-sided argument. Hopefully in the long run, better heads will prevail.

No group of humans in human history is special even if we as a species can empathize with the suffering in human history.

It is legal to say "Atheists will burn in hell" or "I hate atheists"
It is legal to say "I hate Muslims"
It is legal to say "I hate blacks"
It is legal to say, "I hate Jews"

It is not legal nor should it be to say "Go harm/kill this person or people".

I am for laws banning calls to violence, but cannot be for "hate speech' law because there are people I do hate(religious nuts as individuals) and I refuse to hand a loaded gun to a government that may not like what I have to say.

Jews nor Muslims nor gays nor blacks nor atheists should get any special laws keeping any of us being free from being offended. The only thing all of us can agree on is a ban to calls to violence or acts of violence.

[Gerard]

Shocking as this is, am I right in the assumption that a resolution by the CSA has no legal status in that it is an enforceable regulation or law? In other words that it's just a piece of paper stating the opinion of the assembly?

Gerard

[Brian37]

Shocking as this is, am I right in the assumption that a resolution by the CSA has no legal status in that it is an enforceable regulation or law? In other words that it's just a piece of paper stating the opinion of the assembly?

Gerard

I am not stupid, I know it is merely a resolution, but this symbolism is not wise.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

It's not my favorite subject, but do we really need yet another Holocaust museum? The 'holocaust' has become an Israeli industry.
The Ohio statehouse just opened a new one a few days ago. If memory serves Columbus alone has about 15 of them.

[Brian37]

It's not my favorite subject, but do we really need yet another Holocaust museum? The 'holocaust' has become an Israeli industry.
The Ohio statehouse just opened a new one a few days ago. If memory serves Columbus alone has about 15 of them.

Instead of a museum dedicated to the suffering of one religion or race or nationality, how about a museum of ALL human suffering?

My second to last day in Japan, my wife and her parents took me to a Japanese version of their "holocaust" depicting the horrors of war mostly with their historical conflicts with the rest of the orient.

Jews should not be able to set up taboos as if they are the only humans in history that have been victims. We should value the lessons of the Holocaust, but the same could be said for slavery and Native Americans and even the current attempts of genocide between Christians and Muslims in Africa.

[Gerard]

Shocking as this is, am I right in the assumption that a resolution by the CSA has no legal status in that it is an enforceable regulation or law? In other words that it's just a piece of paper stating the opinion of the assembly?

Gerard

I am not stupid, I know it is merely a resolution, but this symbolism is not wise.

Ok, well I wasn't sure about the exact status and the word "law" was mentioned somewhere. It's been known for regulations and laws to be on statute books that are blatantly unconstitutional. but I always figured those were mosly passed more than a century or so age...

Gerard

[AllPurposeAtheist]

It's not my favorite subject, but do we really need yet another Holocaust museum? The 'holocaust' has become an Israeli industry.
The Ohio statehouse just opened a new one a few days ago. If memory serves Columbus alone has about 15 of them.

Instead of a museum dedicated to the suffering of one religion or race or nationality, how about a museum of ALL human suffering?

My second to last day in Japan, my wife and her parents took me to a Japanese version of their "holocaust" depicting the horrors of war mostly with their historical conflicts with the rest of the orient.

Jews should not be able to set up taboos as if they are the only humans in history that have been victims. We should value the lessons of the Holocaust, but the same could be said for slavery and Native Americans and even the current attempts of genocide between Christians and Muslims in Africa.

How about memorializing periods of peace when we're NOT at war? If anything is overlooked peacetime is probably the most overlooked. :-k

[entropy]

I don't think the many lawmakers who voted for this piece of crap resolution actually cared that much about the issue. Most of them probably only cared about one ramification - which vote, "yea" or "nay", would pay off the most politically. It probably only took one or a few lawmakers who are strong advocates for Israel to decide to put forward the resolution, forcing all the other lawmakers to weigh the politics of the vote even though a lot of them probably would have rather ignored the whole thing. Since it was legally non-binding, they really could focus strictly on the politics. Would university academics be upset at them if they voted for it? Yep, but upsetting academics in this case has almost zero political cost. Could a noticable number of donors to their campaigns be upset if they voted against this resolution (that has no legal impact on restricting academic freedom and freedom of expression)? Yep, it could very well lead to less money for their next campaign. Voting "yes" was the safe political vote - almost no political downside in voting "yes" and that "yes" vote steers them clear of even the potential of taking a hit to their campaign war chests.