Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Criticism of Bush's war policy = treason

re: Criticism of Bush's war policy = treason
Mark Eby — (archived)

I attempted to be quite clear that knowingly spreading lies that inflamed muslims into attacking US is the speech activity that I think is treasonous. Because it is virtually impossible to prove whether someone is spreading a lie (or even that it is a lie) because they are a dupe or because they intend to reap political or financial reward by doing so it is unreasonable to allow that to be considered a crime. That doesn't mean it has a lower potential cost in American lives or the well being of the citizens of the country than actions which can be clearly proved and prosecuted. That doesn't mean it is any less morally wrong. We don't prosecute dupes because almost any action can have an unintended benefit to the enemies of the US for instance buying gasoline.

No one has yet denied that helping recruit terrorists is aiding and abetting the enemy. I think it is very wrong for any of you to support the idea that calls of treason should be stamped out like hate crimes. Just as you are offended by potentially false accusations of a serious crime, others are deeply offended that some people seem to put making political points by spreading disinformation ahead of American lives. Since such acts are not a crime the only defense against them is to speak out against them.

I have also stated numerous times that I don't object to anyone objecting to treasonous comments even a moderator. Some will invariably be false and motivated by efforts to quiet the opposition as you say. What I object to is poorly worded moderator posts that can easily be interpreted as a moderator threatening to stifle such comments. I did not know the rule about when Robert is speaking as moderator and when he is not and I'm not a newbie. If I did I wouldn't have been so pissed. I don't think Gary did either or I doubt he would have been pissed enough to apparently leave the board. It really pisses me off that Robert can drive away a valuable poster over such an obvious potential misunderstanding and that you all blindly support his no foul stance.

I said it before and I'll say it again there are so many Roberts here I have trouble keeping them apart. I thought Robert Shepard posts were simply Robert distinguishing himself from the rest. Try something simple guys that even a newbie could understand right away, a modification of RL's method. Put moderator in front of your name if you are speaking as moderator and leave it off if you are speaking as yourself. Someone new who occasionally sees moderator posts and the same name elsewhere without it is probably going to instinctively grasp the rule as will old timers even if they miss some announcement on community or elsewhere. Not everyone visits every board and not everyone visits their favorite board every day.

I meant to address your point by point post today, but since you really focused on the crux of the issue here and I have responded I'll skip it if you finally see where I'm coming from.

Regards,
Mark

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (148 posts)