Forum Thread

Eau Claire Lakes Topics

(Eau Claire Lakes Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,625 messages

Updated 5/17/2024 10:13:59 AM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Eau Claire Lakes Fishing

(Eau Claire Lakes Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	lotowner -	Reply
Subject:	Immunity from Criticism
Date:	5/29/2009 6:48:51 AM

Muslim Group Shuts Down Conservative Conference

Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:26 PM

The manager of a prominent Nashville hotel cancelled a contract with a conservative foundation to hold a conference this weekend on radical Islam, apparently after learning that the group would feature a keynote address by controversial Dutch parliamentarian and filmmaker, Geert Wilders.

Muslim groups succeeded in preventing Wilders from screening “Fitna,” his 15-minute movie on radical Islam, in the House of Lords this February, on claims it was insulting to Muslims, and dogged him during a recent U.S. tour as well.

Thomas A. Negri, managing director of Loew’s Vanderbilt Hotel and Office complex in Nashville, told Newsmax on Wednesday that he had taken the extraordinary step of cancelling the conference at the last minute “for the health, safety and well-being of our guests and employees.”

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Immunity from Criticism
Date:	5/29/2009 11:41:18 AM

I don't think this is immunity from criticism. I think this is a safety issue. If you ran a hotel would you want angry Muslims protesting outside your establishment? Would you want to run the risk of some nut possibly bombing your hotel?

It's no different if they were having a pro-life conference there. Likely the Right to Lifers would make it potentially unsafe.

Price you pay for the First Amendment taken to extremes.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	Immunity from Criticism
Date:	5/29/2009 1:04:17 PM

Wow. Tula your reponse is of concern. You mean any "suggestion" of violent protest should be able to close down an oposing group's conference? With this rationale would any controversial conferences ever be held? Research on this issue will show that muslem "threats" have already forced change of venue for several of these presentations. This kind of threat to the 1st amendment is what we have laws and police for, --to prevent intimidation and emotional extortion.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	And I Agree
Date:	5/29/2009 5:57:43 PM

with you, it is a problem. But we have to face that we live in an increasingly violent society and groups are no longer willing to limit themselves to peaceful demonstration. Have you seen what goes on in the streets when the G-8 and the World Banks meet?

Now if you are a business owner, are you willing to assume the liability for people getting hurt? Suppose if one of them gets killed? Do you think the police can protect you if bombs are set or thrown? Or if some lunatic enters the premises with a gun and starts shooting?

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	And I Agree
Date:	5/29/2009 11:26:21 PM

true...yet, if all followed your rationale, there would be a lot of empty conference rooms around the country, ...alot of cowering souls in CEO offices ...and emboldened anarchists of all persuasions calling the shots,

...should we not show movies in theaters for FEAR someone will yell "FIRE"???? or tis it better to turn on the FIRE yellers so that the law abiding can get on with life as it should be in a free country of just laws?

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	And I Agree
Date:	5/29/2009 11:27:03 PM

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	No Argument
Date:	5/30/2009 9:12:54 AM

But, you have to realize that some topics are so controversial and emotional that they will draw a certain type of demonstration.

I'm not saying that I think it should be this way. What I'm saying is that I can understand the business owners perspective with regards to fear of violence.

Name:	lotowner -	Reply
Subject:	And I Agree
Date:	5/30/2009 9:59:51 AM

I can remember an incident in my home town when I was growing up where a union "Bully" went into a grocery store and asked the owner not to sell groceries to non union miners. The owner refused to honor this request and stated that he would sell groceries to anyone who came in with money. He was neutral in this conflict. What if he had bowed to the demands of this union thug? And, by the way, the union guy had never bought groceries at this store before the union conflict.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	And I Agree
Date:	5/30/2009 12:29:34 PM

And what do you think the grocer thought that the chances were that the Union Boss would lob a molotav cocktail through his window or come in shooting. what were the chances that the Union boss would get on the internet and organize a rampage through your town?

Nice story, be we live in a much different world now. People don't mind using violence as a means to an end.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	And I'm curious
Date:	5/30/2009 12:35:51 PM

Why you would think that it's okay for some conservative group to show what sounds like an anti-Muslim film anyway? Not all Muslims are terrorists... and isn't there enough hate in the world? How would you feel if the local Muslim population decided to offer a screening of an anti-Southern Conservative right wing extremist film in Montgomery? One that depicted the worst behaviors of that sub-culture?

That's part of the problem. People fear what they don't understand.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	And I'm curious
Date:	5/30/2009 3:27:20 PM

AMEN! Hound do you think any of the posters on this forum remember the old adage about whose ox is being gored? It seems that a lot of people toward the far ends of the religious and political spectrum strongly believe in freedom of speech as long as they agree with the speech and the speaker.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	And I'm curious
Date:	5/30/2009 6:19:05 PM

si-i-i-i-igh, --how did Archy turn this into a left-right, liberal-conservative argument??????

-before he entered the discusiion, it was about the first admendment, and should we as a society let threrats intimidate us from allowing people to "say" what they want. The first adment does not protect "acts" of violence, but it does protect violent "speech" , although not speech that insights violence.

From what I know of the referenced speaker at this conference, Wilders, he has a perspective, gained from first-hand experiences, of the impact of Moslem immigrants on Ductch society and the impact of Ductch society on Moslem immigrants. It's a point of view that shoud probably be heard and evaluated in an open society like ours which itself is dealing with a growing moslem population.

Contrary to the above reference, I'm sure alot of the posters on this former understand the gored-ox referemce (si-i-i-i-igh), but that's not what we're talking about. This is not a left-right, liberal-conservative, stupid-intelligent argument, it's an intelligent discussion. Please let's keep it that way.
---Thanks

Name:	lotowner -	Reply
Subject:	And I Agree
Date:	5/30/2009 7:09:22 PM

Nice try but those days were tough also. Have you ever heard of a couple of sticks of dynamite set off under a coal truck? Coal trucks coming through the mountains had a person riding shotgun armed with a rifle?

I can remember at least 6 miners killed while trying to work in a non union environment. What is the difference between then and today? Moslem terrorist! Who are the suicide bombers? I don't know of any Canadians, Americans, Mexicans, Germans, French, etc. The one common tie to these killers is Islam.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	And I'm curious
Date:	5/30/2009 8:27:25 PM

This began as discussion of free speech. I used mine to respond to the question posed by Hound. Will you are some others do the same rather than hurl silly mini-insults.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	And I'm curious
Date:	5/30/2009 10:01:36 PM

Hound, it doesn't make a whit's difference whether it is a conservative, liberal, libertarian, right wing, left wing, flying wing or neo-narcissist-fascist-communist-poopdeck group that wants to show the film.

Its a shame you had to phrase it that way ("conservative group" because now you have the draw-man all riled up and we have to put up with another string of his pie-in-the-sky opinions.

For someone who claims to be conservative at heart you surely do pounce on every opportunity to slam conservatives and praise (or at least defend) the Messiah.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	I used
Date:	5/31/2009 10:04:17 AM

that particular example with a hope that it would make people think. It would be an emotional subject, just like a film about Muslims. I could have said "a film about the NRA". Same kind of emotion.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	AMEN AGAIN
Date:	5/31/2009 10:56:06 AM

It seems that if any anger or condemnation is appropriate here it should be directed at the hotel management. The conservative group planned to use its first amend. rights. Because of the "possibility" that islamic groups might counter via its first amend. rights, the conference was stopped. It was the hotel management that put up the stop sign.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	let's focus
Date:	5/31/2009 11:31:24 AM

-The subject was the 1st amendment using this hotel incident as an example.

-The hotel gave as its rationale for cancelling the conference as the hotel's fear that violent pro-Moslem groups would take actions that would endanger the hotel's facilities or patrons. That kind of situation is a threat to our 1st amendment rights.

-Had the hotel said that once it found out the subject of the conference, the hotel management found this subject offensive and thus refused to host the conference, that would be the hotel exercising its first amendment rights.

-But Archy's reference to an activist group taking violent action against the hotel as that group exercising its first amendment rights is just plain wrong. The ist amendment does not protect violent acts, or speech that promotes violent acts, ---(...however, since the 1st amendment does protect violent speech, there is a gray area between it and speech that promotes violent action).

-in recent years, we have added to ths mix of 1st amendment rights the issue of "hate" speech. In the view of many, the laws against "hate" speech have severely limited 1st amendment rights. But perhaps that a discussion for another time.

-This hotel incident has not been phrased by the management as a 1st amedment issue. Rather it has been phrased as a "fear" issue, --thus is an issue of cowardness in face of intimidation and emotional extortion. Such fear, intimidation, and extortion are all crimes under the 1st amaendment. (---about an earlier comment in an above email about union threats not having the same safety concerns as a terrorist threat. I come from a long-time union family and know the history of uniion activism very well. There was a time, probably about the same time referenced in the above email, when a union threat was a serious threat to someone's home, business, and life.)

-personally, I believe incidents like the hotel example are a threat to our 1st amendment rights, I believe all Americans (not just those supporting a particular ox) should be concerned. I further believe that our fixation on "political correctness" in speech has become a form of self-censorship and is also a threat to our 1st amendment protections.

-just some thought for your consideration

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Understand your point
Date:	5/31/2009 3:19:01 PM

but, let's just say that the conference went on. Suppose there was a protest that turned violent and people were hurt or killed. Would the exercise of "First Amendment Rights" in this case be more important than people's lives?
In another point, the hotel assumes liability for the safety of it's guests. If guests were injured as a result of allowing this conference to go on, then should the hotel just tell those injured "sorry, but this other groups First Amendment Rights were more important than your safety".

Suppose the group was showing a film supporting late stage abortion. Would you still be defending their "First Amendment Rights"?

You see, it's very easy to wrap this all up in the First Amendment, but it quickly becomes the slippery slope. With the exercise of your first amendment rights, that is, if you personally want to go stand on a soapbox on a corner and spew hate, and be willing to be shot, I'm okay with that. Likely the only person severely affected is you. But, if I'm a shop owner and you want to stand on your soapbox in my shop and exercise you First Amendment rights, and there is a probably that someone will not only kill you, but kill me too, then I'm not okay with that.
Public safety has got to be figured into the equation.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	Understand your point
Date:	5/31/2009 3:55:06 PM

let's look at your four very good points:

1) the conference went on and peope were killed; would the exercise of first amendment be more important than peoples' lives? --the 1st amendment, as part of the constitution and a derivative fom the Declaration, has been protected by alot of lives-on-the-line, ...and many of them lost. Should we add a clause to the first amendment that says something like .."free speech, but only if were not threatened with bodily harm." Where's Patrick Henry when you need him.

2) would I be OK with a film of late term abortion? ..where did you get the idea from anything I've said in this forum that I'm either for or against abortion? ...do you assume that because I'm for free speech that I'm against abortion? ...but to answer your question, of course i'd support the right of free speech for people who promote abortion. I still don't get why every thing on this forum gets down to being either a left or right issue, with no one listening to the argument once a label has been applied.

3)..stand on your soap box but not on my porch; ..I certainly agree. But that's not the issue here. The hotel agreed to let the soap box go on its porch, but then rescinded because of fear of thugs, terrorists, etc. The conference's and the hotel's first amendment rights were being denied thru intimidation and threats of force or perceived threats of force. That, by most views, is a suppression of first amendment rights, and as citizens the government should act to protect this right or abrogate its responsibility and allow citizens to protect their own rights..

4) Issue of public safety: ...in examples of the IMF meetings, G8 conferences, etc that you mentioned in emails above, were these called off because of threas to public safety? Of course not. Why not? ..well, in America because of the right to free speech and assembly.

...just a few thoughts for your consideration.

(PS: for those of us who think in the middle and probably for most who think only left or right ---Tiller's death is a sad event)

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Understand your point
Date:	5/31/2009 6:36:00 PM

The initial post said the hotel cancelled the conference not because of threats of violence by islamic thugs but because the management learned of the controversial nature of the conference and was concerned about the islamic community choosing to use the right to free speech (ie protest) with the possibility it might lead to violence. The conference sponsors may have a beef about their right to free speech being subordinated to the right of a private business to run his business as he thinks best. Or as you say quite well, don,t put your soap box on my porch. It seems to me this is a wise business man showing common sense.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Okay I give up
Date:	5/31/2009 9:01:09 PM

The truth is I don't believe in free speech. I believe that everyone should talk like civilized adults and try not to hurt other people. Because the older I get, the more I believe that words matter. And the innocent showing of a film that depicts Muslims in a controversial light, especially to people who probably don't know any Muslims, is going to be inflammatory and probably reinforce stereotypes. Unless they were also going to have Muslims in the conference to provide their point of view, then I'm against it. So kill me.

BTW, I didn't mean to imply that you, personally, would have a problem with abortion. I was just using it as an example of a topic that usually provokes strong emotions for and against.

I have been thinking about how often people are talking about their "right" to this or their "right" to that based on what's in the Constitution. I wonder if instead of thinking of it as a "right" maybe we should think of these things as privileges.
And like "privileges", they can be taken away when we abuse them.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	Okay I give up
Date:	5/31/2009 11:05:41 PM

OK, I give up too!

-But, --there's always a but ( or in this case a butthead --me, because I guess I can't just give up)

-I must comment on the idea of treating these rights, like free speech, as privileges that can be taken away. They are not privileges, they are rights.

-Free speech and the like are listed in the Constitution. The preamble to the Constitution says the Constitution was written to "secure the blessings (I believe Free Speech is one) of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity. The Constitution is a dirivative document of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration lists Liberty as an "unalienable right"

-Kings and States don't give us Americans the blessings of Liberty. We believe these blessings are ours by our very nature as humans. We give the State the privilege to protect these blessings for us. We're the ones who can take the privileges away from them, --not the other way around.

-But then I don't have to tell you that. If I interpret your posts correctly, you have spent a career in the service of your country protecting those rights, --and that sir, as you well know, is a privilege.

-no more posts on this subject from me.
-thanks y'all for listening.

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Okay I give up
Date:	6/1/2009 8:19:32 AM

And never even got started.. I have strong feelings on this thread... both ways... (chuckle)

Quick Links
Eau Claire Lakes News
Eau Claire Lakes Photos
Eau Claire Lakes Videos