The "current political climate"? And what is so special about it? People have expressed support and opposition to every American presidential candidate in history.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the "current political climate" is more strident, violent, and just downright NASTY than at any time since 1865.
Someone holding a sign opposing one presidential candidate somehow has less rights than a person holding a sign opposing another presidential candiate?
No. I would feel the same about a Democrat President.
And obviously anyone who is not a criminal obviously does not get thrown in jail. Anyone who is not a criminal is just another member of the general public. A member of the general public with the exact same rights to go anywhere / do anything as the rest of the general public.
There is no such right. You have a right to say what you wish (within the limits of slander and so on, obviously) and hold up signs, make films, publish books, whatever. There is absolutely no right to go anywhere you want to do it.
If you saw a single black American bound in slavery today, would you point to a set of scales and cite all of the black Americans who are not bound in slavery?
To take your analogy, I state that there IS NO black American bound in slavery. I'm saying that you're taking something that is NOT a violation of free speech, and attempting to twist and portray it as a violation of free speech. With enough evidence, I might be persuaded to believe that it IS a violation of free speech. But there would have to be more than just people not being able to protest the President up close and personal. Particularly when protesters have been restricted physically by previous court rulings. Anti-abortion protesters were, quite reasonably in my opinion, not allowed to come within a certain distance of abortion clinics. They could still protest, they just had to do it away from the clinic. No limitation of free speech at all.
So if I show up in a T-shirt that says BushSucks then I am a "security risk"
Yeah, I'd say it's a pretty reasonable assumption in the current political climate.
No, that is a purely content based restiction of free speech.
And I disagree. They're still allowed to hold their signs. Just not in any place they choose.
I repeat, people who commit crimes or intend to commit crimes are criminals and belong prison cells.
OK, so if people show up to protest, they should be put in jail? That's a much better solution than keeping them away from the target of their hatred or from official business that may be disrupted. (By the way, someone who may only be considering a crime or disruption of public business is NOT a criminal. They must do something first.)
No, I call bullshit on you. Neither I nor anyone I noticed claimed it is impossible to express negative oppinion on the president.
You didn't. But it has been said. And the poster who got all this started said this: "Speaking ill of the Current Power Structure is bad, because we must protect children from policies we do not agree with. sigh... it was a nice democratic republic we had once." Clever use of the past tense there. It's all gone now, no more 'speaking ill' of the Current Power Structure. Mr. Moore and others are constantly talking about dissent being crushed while their comments are broadcast on TVs and radios and movie theater screens all over the place. If you don't think those statements are silly, I don't think there's anything else I can say to you.
Just because opression and censorship are not total and complete does not mean there is no opression or censorship.
I disagree with the premise that any is going on, of course. But at any rate, you misunderstand my argument altogether.
Consider a set of scales. On one side, we have the FCC continuing to fine stations that broadcast obscenities, per federal law. We also have protesters held at a distance from the person or place where they want to protest. You have to work pretty damn hard to twist that into a case of censorship. I'm talking Illuminati/International Jewish Conspiracy/barcodes-are-the-mark-of-the-devil type mental gymnastics.
But to be fair, let's hold the theory in mind for a moment with respect to the evidence on the other side of the scales: we have an extremely large number of people saying, writing, and broadcasting all manner of criticism. Some of it's vile, slanderous, false, and even threatening. Yet there is no attempt from the government to stop it, or even respond to it in most cases. These critics have a much wider reach than some people protesting a long distance from the President or saying "fuck" on PBS. And the critics who are more reasonable have some credibility in the public eye, making them dangerous political opponents.
The counter-evidence is so great, that I cannot consider FCC fines or limitations on physical location of protesters to be a sign of oppression or censorship (in addition to the fact that neither one properly fits the description of censorship anyway).
Slashdot only allows posting to a story for a while and I don't know how much longer we have. So if you'd like to discuss by email, you can send messages to jhclouse at juno dot com.
What a laugh riot. The people running the mass media are so far to the left, they're about to fall off the edge. Who do you think is always pushing so hard against traditionally conservative morality?
to convince the public that X is crazy, stupid, obscene, "wrong", unsafe, bad for children, etc, that puts an end to free speech.
This canard is just silly. "The Media" doesn't convince people of anything.
"50 years ago" is a reference to the approximate beginning of general TV broadcasting.
Again -- the "Breen code" in Hollywood was around for a long time, it just wasn't enforced. The situations are pretty comparable.
They aren't even remotely comparable and you don't have a CLUE what you're talking about. The "Breen code," as you call it, was something the MPAA created to self-police the movie industry. The Production Code (it's real name) was created in 1930 as a voluntary standard for the member production companies. It went through various changes until it was replaced in 1968 by the MPAA film rating system. It wasn't administered by anyone in government, it was not mandatory (films were released without compliance--they just didn't get an MPAA seal-of-approval), and it had nothing to do with politics. Far from it, it had more to do with marketing to a concerned audience. Take a look at the Wikipedia article.
Blinding yourself to the fact that the FCC's action against Howard Stern was politically motivated
You still have provided no proof. Only wild-eyed assumption. You do realize that Stern is now heard in more markets than he was before, right? You also realize, I'm sure, that the FCC only takes action in compliance with FEDERAL LAW after receiving, vetting, and investigating complaints from listeners. In Stern's case, this meant fining Clear Channel. Clear Channel then dropped him from 6 of the MANY stations on which his program was broadcast. As you know, he picked up 6 replacements, plus 3 more stations.
because the attempt was inept, to hear you argue it
I argue no such thing. I argue that if the FCC were pursuing a policy of censoring political opponents, Howard Stern would not be on the air at all, and that others who say FAR worse things would be removed from the airwaves as well. Consider the case of Al Franken, for example. Then there is Pacifica radio. Don't forget NPR. NPR news programs make critical statements of the administration all the time. And they have far more impact and credibility than Howard Stern. If this were a politically motivated hit job, All Things Considered would be gone long before Howard Stern.
To bring you back on-topic, however, I still contend that making critical comments about the Administration, then saying that no one is allowed to disagree with the Administration, is a silly position to take. That's what started this thread.
Really, take a look at what has been going on. Do a Google search on "free speech zone". For example here is the #1 Google result. Read that link.
Read it, still disagree with you. People who oppose the President's policies and show up at an event are certainly to be viewed as security risks. Additionally, these protests *have* been used to shutdown G8 summits and ports before. A group right now is stating that they plan on trying to have NYC evacuated for the convention by sprinkling themselves with gunpowder to fool bomb sniffing dogs. They also plan on throwing marbles underneath police horses.
It is Bush/Ashcroft policy to supress critcism by whatever means available, legal or not.
Funny you say that when there are literally hundreds of anti-Bush books being published. Take a trip down to Barnes & Noble and look. It's all you can see on any shelf. Administration response: ZIP. Michael Moore's flick has taken in 100 million dollars. Administration response: ZIP. There's even a book out now with a fictional account of the President's assassination. Adminstration response: ZIP. If their position was to "supress critcism by whatever means available, legal or not," none of this would be taking place. Remember the Dixie Chicks' comments? Not so much as a peep about it from the White House. In fact, Natalie Maines was royally pissed off BECAUSE there was no response. So, you'll understand that when someone spouts off about the evils of the President on Slashdot, then IN THE VERY SAME PARAGRAPH, says that it's literally IMPOSSIBLE to express a negative opinion on the Administration, I'm going to call bullshit on it. Because it IS bullshit.
No, I got your point. It's just wrong. It's perfectly legal to place restrictions on where, when, and how people can do things that could be potentially hazardous. Yes, people have a right to speak--they exercise it all the time. But if the authorities believe that a group of people may pose some hazard, it's entirely correct for them to take precautions. It's not a limitation of speech. I still stand by my claim that no one is being stopped from criticizing the government. I do it all the time.
And to bring this back to my original point: no one can sit here on Slashdot and claim that people who criticize the government are censored when that's exactly what they're doing.
Perhaps you're not listening to the whole statement. Usually it goes something like there's no such thing as free speech when there's censorship of this kind.
What censorship? You can say anything you damn well please and a lot of people do it. Hell, Michael Moore just released a film slandering public officials and he's still out there roaming the streets, a free man. The government hasn't dragged him off to some concentration camp. He's not having his skull bashed in. Where's the limitation on speech here?
People on Slashdot say all manner of silly things without fear of secret police coming to arrest them. Then they claim that they're being censored. That makes no sense whatsoever. If they were being censored, they wouldn't be able to tell us about it. It's mindless.
You know what amazes me? People are willing to give up loads of rights for imaginary security precautions. People are pretty much going to sign up for national ID cards, as long as it's for the cheeeeeeyldren.
Um, no they're not. This isn't happening. Where do you get this complete and utter bullshit?
Liberty requires eternal vigilance. Lazy assholes who don't care if they're free will be perfectly willing to give up their freedom for the imagined security of speech restrictions, or metal detectors, or what-have-you.
Yep. But those who aren't lazy assholes go join the Marines and head overseas to kill our enemies. I suppose you're in favor of that, right? Or are you content just sitting there, being a lazy asshole, not doing your part?
If you keep them at a safe distance, they don't need to go to jail because they don't do any harm. The purpose of keeping them at a distance is to avoid an incident that would disrupt the lives of others (usually, the people being protested against).
Riiiight. It's a decency issue that everyone was perfectly content to let slide forever
No, the decency guidelines have been in place the whole time. It's just that you weren't paying attention until a whole lot of people got upset and demanded more visible action.
Then, ta-dum, he suddenly became a threat to decency that we just had to make an example of.
If it's politically motivated, they sure did a piss-poor job of it: Howard Stern is still on the air. 6 stations decided to drop him.
Now, the real question is: how does enforcing the law on broadcast television convince anybody that political dissent is being crushed? Natalie Maines got all hot and bothered because Bush didn't do or say anything about her comments. That sure is oppresive.
I was protesting against Bush in LA, and some "free republicans" said I was being anti-American.
Are you?
They then used their American flags to cover my "Stop bush" sign
How unfortunate.
the ironyOnly if they said you were censoring them.
Free speech? Only if you agree with those who call the shots.
So you're writing this from a gulag? Did the government stormtroopers beat your brains out before hauling you and everybody else at the protest to a concentration camp where you will be experimented on, like people in North Korea are EVERY FUCKING DAY?
People speak out against the government every single day here. Many of them do it on TV and radio and they keep on doing it. They don't mysteriously disappear, never to return. They just get mocked by those who disagree with them. If that's too much for you to take, I'm sorry.
Well, you can't go on TV in the US late at night and say "fuck".
Yes you can. You just can't do it on BROADCAST television. (Actually, you can do that too--you'll just be fined for it.) Satellite- and cable-only channels are wide open for porn, profanity, and violence. The broadcast rules go back far beyond this current administration and the rules have gotten more relaxed...not more stringent. And the idea that this has anything at all to do with crushing political dissent is mindless.
The US is ruled by the Christian right, and what they say goes.
Uh huh. That's why we have abortion on demand, handing out condoms to 5 year olds, smoking, drinking, rampant adultery and homosexuality, and countless millions who worship Allah, Buddha, money, Wodin, or their own desires. And plenty who say they believe in God but have absolutely nothing in their lives that even remotely resembles religion.
If you seriously think the US has free speech, then hats off to the government - they've pulled the wool over your eyes good and proper.
No, I'm just not a knee-jerk reactionary who spouts off bullshit without even a hint of what's really going on.
Bush is no Hitler. (I wouldn't call Kerry Hitler either. I think he's a dunce, but he's not Hitler.) But at any rate, the election thing is: 1) absolutely the wrong way to go; 2) will never occur; 3) was probably an idea floated by some bureaucrat until shot down 15 seconds later. That's what most of these things are anyway.
I'm not. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what people say. But the idea that the current administration is a horrible dictatorship crushing any and all who oppose it is ridiculous. Especially when it's in response to a story about decency restrictions that have been in place for some 50 years--and have become more relaxed since then, rather than more strict.
Yes, but I would not consider that to be a bad form of censorship.
I think you misunderstood me. I don't think it's censorship at all. Censorship, by definition, is practiced by the government. I just found it amusing that people who are afraid that their political views are being crushed would want to smother a response. Other than that misunderstanding, I pretty much agree with your other points though.
They can still speak all they want. They just have to do so in a way that ensures safety to others. If that means keeping them at a distance from people they may endanger, so be it. Several anarchist groups are planning on protesting the Republican convention by pulling stunts to have the area evacuated. This stuff needs to be stopped so that those *involved* in the event can have their own right to speak.
Nevertheless, U.S law makes the distinction and has done so for a very very long time. This is not something the eeeeeevil Bush administration came up with.
As if you can't imply things without saying them explicitly.
Go take a listen. People are saying that the President is a murderer, a liar, a traitor. Then when someone says such comments are silly or give aid and comfort to the enemy (which they do), we get "Oh! The fires of oppression are burning! Help! Help!" What a load. When there are storm troopers throwing you in a gulag and bashing your skull in for being critical of the Administration, we'll talk. Nice try though.
Slashdot Mirror
when you have neutrons flying fuckfast all over the place
.sig!
I think I found my new
Just stay away from the farm subsidies. The come down is a bitch...
And their walkie-talkies.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the "current political climate" is more strident, violent, and just downright NASTY than at any time since 1865.
Someone holding a sign opposing one presidential candidate somehow has less rights than a person holding a sign opposing another presidential candiate?
No. I would feel the same about a Democrat President.
And obviously anyone who is not a criminal obviously does not get thrown in jail. Anyone who is not a criminal is just another member of the general public. A member of the general public with the exact same rights to go anywhere / do anything as the rest of the general public.
There is no such right. You have a right to say what you wish (within the limits of slander and so on, obviously) and hold up signs, make films, publish books, whatever. There is absolutely no right to go anywhere you want to do it.
If you saw a single black American bound in slavery today, would you point to a set of scales and cite all of the black Americans who are not bound in slavery?
To take your analogy, I state that there IS NO black American bound in slavery. I'm saying that you're taking something that is NOT a violation of free speech, and attempting to twist and portray it as a violation of free speech. With enough evidence, I might be persuaded to believe that it IS a violation of free speech. But there would have to be more than just people not being able to protest the President up close and personal. Particularly when protesters have been restricted physically by previous court rulings. Anti-abortion protesters were, quite reasonably in my opinion, not allowed to come within a certain distance of abortion clinics. They could still protest, they just had to do it away from the clinic. No limitation of free speech at all.
Yeah, I'd say it's a pretty reasonable assumption in the current political climate.
No, that is a purely content based restiction of free speech.
And I disagree. They're still allowed to hold their signs. Just not in any place they choose.
I repeat, people who commit crimes or intend to commit crimes are criminals and belong prison cells.
OK, so if people show up to protest, they should be put in jail? That's a much better solution than
keeping them away from the target of their hatred or from official business that may be disrupted. (By the way, someone who may only be considering a crime or disruption of public business is NOT a criminal. They must do something first.)
No, I call bullshit on you. Neither I nor anyone I noticed claimed it is impossible to express negative oppinion on the president.
You didn't. But it has been said. And the poster who got all this started said this: "Speaking ill of the Current Power Structure is bad, because we must protect children from policies we do not agree with. sigh... it was a nice democratic republic we had once." Clever use of the past tense there. It's all gone now, no more 'speaking ill' of the Current Power Structure. Mr. Moore and others are constantly talking about dissent being crushed while their comments are broadcast on TVs and radios and movie theater screens all over the place. If you don't think those statements are silly, I don't think there's anything else I can say to you.
Just because opression and censorship are not total and complete does not mean there is no opression or censorship.
I disagree with the premise that any is going on, of course. But at any rate, you misunderstand my argument altogether.
Consider a set of scales. On one side, we have the FCC continuing to fine stations that broadcast obscenities, per federal law. We also have protesters held at a distance from the person or place where they want to protest. You have to work pretty damn hard to twist that into a case of censorship. I'm talking Illuminati/International Jewish Conspiracy/barcodes-are-the-mark-of-the-devil type mental gymnastics.
But to be fair, let's hold the theory in mind for a moment with respect to the evidence on the other side of the scales: we have an extremely large number of people saying, writing, and broadcasting all manner of criticism. Some of it's vile, slanderous, false, and even threatening. Yet there is no attempt from the government to stop it, or even respond to it in most cases. These critics have a much wider reach than some people protesting a long distance from the President or saying "fuck" on PBS. And the critics who are more reasonable have some credibility in the public eye, making them dangerous political opponents.
The counter-evidence is so great, that I cannot consider FCC fines or limitations on physical location of protesters to be a sign of oppression or censorship (in addition to the fact that neither one properly fits the description of censorship anyway).
Slashdot only allows posting to a story for a while and I don't know how much longer we have. So if you'd like to discuss by email, you can send messages to jhclouse at juno dot com.
What a laugh riot. The people running the mass media are so far to the left, they're about to fall off the edge. Who do you think is always pushing so hard against traditionally conservative morality?
to convince the public that X is crazy, stupid, obscene, "wrong", unsafe, bad for children, etc, that puts an end to free speech.
This canard is just silly. "The Media" doesn't convince people of anything.
"50 years ago" is a reference to the approximate beginning of general TV broadcasting.
Again -- the "Breen code" in Hollywood was around for a long time, it just wasn't enforced. The situations are pretty comparable.
They aren't even remotely comparable and you don't have a CLUE what you're talking about. The "Breen code," as you call it, was something the MPAA created to self-police the movie industry. The Production Code (it's real name) was created in 1930 as a voluntary standard for the member production companies. It went through various changes until it was replaced in 1968 by the MPAA film rating system. It wasn't administered by anyone in government, it was not mandatory (films were released without compliance--they just didn't get an MPAA seal-of-approval), and it had nothing to do with politics. Far from it, it had more to do with marketing to a concerned audience. Take a look at the Wikipedia article.
Blinding yourself to the fact that the FCC's action against Howard Stern was politically motivated
You still have provided no proof. Only wild-eyed assumption. You do realize that Stern is now heard in more markets than he was before, right? You also realize, I'm sure, that the FCC only takes action in compliance with FEDERAL LAW after receiving, vetting, and investigating complaints from listeners. In Stern's case, this meant fining Clear Channel. Clear Channel then dropped him from 6 of the MANY stations on which his program was broadcast. As you know, he picked up 6 replacements, plus 3 more stations.
because the attempt was inept, to hear you argue it
I argue no such thing. I argue that if the FCC were pursuing a policy of censoring political opponents, Howard Stern would not be on the air at all, and that others who say FAR worse things would be removed from the airwaves as well. Consider the case of Al Franken, for example. Then there is Pacifica radio. Don't forget NPR. NPR news programs make critical statements of the administration all the time. And they have far more impact and credibility than Howard Stern. If this were a politically motivated hit job, All Things Considered would be gone long before Howard Stern.
To bring you back on-topic, however, I still contend that making critical comments about the Administration, then saying that no one is allowed to disagree with the Administration, is a silly position to take. That's what started this thread.
Read it, still disagree with you. People who oppose the President's policies and show up at an event are certainly to be viewed as security risks. Additionally, these protests *have* been used to shutdown G8 summits and ports before. A group right now is stating that they plan on trying to have NYC evacuated for the convention by sprinkling themselves with gunpowder to fool bomb sniffing dogs. They also plan on throwing marbles underneath police horses.
It is Bush/Ashcroft policy to supress critcism by whatever means available, legal or not.
Funny you say that when there are literally hundreds of anti-Bush books being published. Take a trip down to Barnes & Noble and look. It's all you can see on any shelf. Administration response: ZIP. Michael Moore's flick has taken in 100 million dollars. Administration response: ZIP. There's even a book out now with a fictional account of the President's assassination. Adminstration response: ZIP. If their position was to "supress critcism by whatever means available, legal or not," none of this would be taking place. Remember the Dixie Chicks' comments? Not so much as a peep about it from the White House. In fact, Natalie Maines was royally pissed off BECAUSE there was no response. So, you'll understand that when someone spouts off about the evils of the President on Slashdot, then IN THE VERY SAME PARAGRAPH, says that it's literally IMPOSSIBLE to express a negative opinion on the Administration, I'm going to call bullshit on it. Because it IS bullshit.
No, I'm an amputee.
And to bring this back to my original point: no one can sit here on Slashdot and claim that people who criticize the government are censored when that's exactly what they're doing.
Thanks for all your hard work. XEvil is a great game! I especially enjoy those priceless rankings you came up with.
What censorship? You can say anything you damn well please and a lot of people do it. Hell, Michael Moore just released a film slandering public officials and he's still out there roaming the streets, a free man. The government hasn't dragged him off to some concentration camp. He's not having his skull bashed in. Where's the limitation on speech here?
People on Slashdot say all manner of silly things without fear of secret police coming to arrest them. Then they claim that they're being censored. That makes no sense whatsoever. If they were being censored, they wouldn't be able to tell us about it. It's mindless.
You know what amazes me? People are willing to give up loads of rights for imaginary security precautions. People are pretty much going to sign up for national ID cards, as long as it's for the cheeeeeeyldren.
Um, no they're not. This isn't happening. Where do you get this complete and utter bullshit?
Liberty requires eternal vigilance. Lazy assholes who don't care if they're free will be perfectly willing to give up their freedom for the imagined security of speech restrictions, or metal detectors, or what-have-you.
Yep. But those who aren't lazy assholes go join the Marines and head overseas to kill our enemies. I suppose you're in favor of that, right? Or are you content just sitting there, being a lazy asshole, not doing your part?
If you keep them at a safe distance, they don't need to go to jail because they don't do any harm. The purpose of keeping them at a distance is to avoid an incident that would disrupt the lives of others (usually, the people being protested against).
No brains.
No, the decency guidelines have been in place the whole time. It's just that you weren't paying attention until a whole lot of people got upset and demanded more visible action.
Then, ta-dum, he suddenly became a threat to decency that we just had to make an example of.
If it's politically motivated, they sure did a piss-poor job of it: Howard Stern is still on the air. 6 stations decided to drop him.
Now, the real question is: how does enforcing the law on broadcast television convince anybody that political dissent is being crushed? Natalie Maines got all hot and bothered because Bush didn't do or say anything about her comments. That sure is oppresive.
Are you?
They then used their American flags to cover my "Stop bush" sign
How unfortunate.
the ironyOnly if they said you were censoring them.
Free speech? Only if you agree with those who call the shots.
So you're writing this from a gulag? Did the government stormtroopers beat your brains out before hauling you and everybody else at the protest to a concentration camp where you will be experimented on, like people in North Korea are EVERY FUCKING DAY?
People speak out against the government every single day here. Many of them do it on TV and radio and they keep on doing it. They don't mysteriously disappear, never to return. They just get mocked by those who disagree with them. If that's too much for you to take, I'm sorry.
Yes you can. You just can't do it on BROADCAST television. (Actually, you can do that too--you'll just be fined for it.) Satellite- and cable-only channels are wide open for porn, profanity, and violence. The broadcast rules go back far beyond this current administration and the rules have gotten more relaxed...not more stringent. And the idea that this has anything at all to do with crushing political dissent is mindless.
The US is ruled by the Christian right, and what they say goes.
Uh huh. That's why we have abortion on demand, handing out condoms to 5 year olds, smoking, drinking, rampant adultery and homosexuality, and countless millions who worship Allah, Buddha, money, Wodin, or their own desires. And plenty who say they believe in God but have absolutely nothing in their lives that even remotely resembles religion.
If you seriously think the US has free speech, then hats off to the government - they've pulled the wool over your eyes good and proper.
No, I'm just not a knee-jerk reactionary who spouts off bullshit without even a hint of what's really going on.
Bush is no Hitler. (I wouldn't call Kerry Hitler either. I think he's a dunce, but he's not Hitler.) But at any rate, the election thing is: 1) absolutely the wrong way to go; 2) will never occur; 3) was probably an idea floated by some bureaucrat until shot down 15 seconds later. That's what most of these things are anyway.
I'm not. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what people say. But the idea that the current administration is a horrible dictatorship crushing any and all who oppose it is ridiculous. Especially when it's in response to a story about decency restrictions that have been in place for some 50 years--and have become more relaxed since then, rather than more strict.
I think you misunderstood me. I don't think it's censorship at all. Censorship, by definition, is practiced by the government. I just found it amusing that people who are afraid that their political views are being crushed would want to smother a response. Other than that misunderstanding, I pretty much agree with your other points though.
You won't have to. If anybody comes for me, it will be people like YOU who think your "drastic measures" are stopping authoritarianism.
They can still speak all they want. They just have to do so in a way that ensures safety to others. If that means keeping them at a distance from people they may endanger, so be it. Several anarchist groups are planning on protesting the Republican convention by pulling stunts to have the area evacuated. This stuff needs to be stopped so that those *involved* in the event can have their own right to speak.
Uh huh. I'm sure I'd be aghast at what your idea of "standing up to the oppressors" is.
Nevertheless, U.S law makes the distinction and has done so for a very very long time. This is not something the eeeeeevil Bush administration came up with.
Go take a listen. People are saying that the President is a murderer, a liar, a traitor. Then when someone says such comments are silly or give aid and comfort to the enemy (which they do), we get "Oh! The fires of oppression are burning! Help! Help!" What a load. When there are storm troopers throwing you in a gulag and bashing your skull in for being critical of the Administration, we'll talk. Nice try though.