Bush supporters create opposing camp

Damn, Subrosa already said what I was getting at better than I did. Well played, sir, well played

I would go out of my way to be respectful for someone who has suffered such a loss and there have been many comments about how Sheehan should be treated (not by you I know). I don't think anyone questioned the legality but the ethics issue is very much a real one.

Well, it seemed like people were starting to get into the legal issue so I thought I'd make the point to stave it off.

Ethically, I agree it is not necessarily tasteful, but neither is war and political protesters are under no obligation to be considerate. I support their right to make their point however they choose to make it regardless of whether or not I'd make the same decision.

Is it even possible to deliver an apolitical message about the war that involves listing the names of the dead?

"In fact, if my country wants more soldiers to send to die for another country's attempt freedom I'll be glad to help create those soldiers -- I'll need 18 years and the Bush twins, and any other scraps you can toss me."

since no one has posted it yet:

Pardon the english language, even though its my native langauge I have major issues.

So it would be ok with all of you guys if I put the name of Sheehan's kid up on my Pro-war protest? I could see the screems right now.

Well we will see what happens

Also to the guy who asked if I was for Freedom of Speech. Yes within reason. Using the names of the dead is like a KKK member using MLK's name to prove his point about races.

A person paying respect to someones death sepreatly from a protest is fine, mixing the two makes me sick to my stomach.

So that's a no, you don't believe in Freedom of Speech. Perhaps your stomach could form the basis of the law which puts an end to this troublesome freedom.

I'm pretty sure the Alpha Betas might have an issue with that.

At it's most simplistic level, yes individual mail carriers could be the focus of the debate. Once you are a public servant, you become part of public debate. Not that this issue is black and white, it certainly falls into the realm of "shades of grey." For one thing, there is a world of difference between enacting public policy and enforcing public policy.
It is not a tactic that I would choose, or especially like and I think that it gets about as close to crossing an ethical line as you can get. But in a discussion as important and as relevant to the US as this one, I would say that it doesn't fall into the category of unacceptable discourse.
Personally I think it might be more meaningful to put names of the innocent Iraqis who have died in this conflict on the gravemarkers.
As a nod to subrosa, I'm pontificating on my opinion about the ethical implications, I am certainly not qualified to discuss the legal implications.

Yep. That'd be fine. No screams here.

Again, fine. Of course, that KKK member would look like a colossal moron. Your analogy is not a very good one in that MLK stood directly opposed to the KKK, whereas (presumably) fallen soldiers do not stand directly opposed to people using freedom of speech to protest the war. But you can disagree with me and get disgusted all you want.

I believe that is precisely the point of the protest.

just what we need two groups of crazies yelling at each other

If you hadn't noticed, this is clearly the forseeable future of American political discourse.

As normal pardon the spelling and grammer. Sorry

There is a difference between freedom of speech and using someone for propaganda. Its the same reason you cant quote someone else's words in without giving them credit.

Let me ask you this. If you die in a tragic protest that you werent involved in(walking by), and I say "People on this list died supporting the control of free speech" how would you feel? Thats not free speech to me. Free speech is stating your opinion, making your point. Not saying yourself and these dead people, all believe the same thing. If putting words in dead soldiers mouth is free speech, then by all means call me anti-free speech.

Id rather hold of the integrity of a soldiers opinions pro or anti over "free speech" any day. Because in the end these opinions are the persons free speech, and Sheehan is destroying it by using names to support a claim they may or not be for. However I am sure your going to tell me different, and I do look forward to your rebutal.

...as well as it's past....

There's a difference between declaring facts - i.e. listing people who died - and ascribing a viewpoint to those facts - i.e. the dead would rather not be. Has she said that the dead soldiers didn't believe in the war, or that they weren't willing to give their lives for it?

Without getting to far in depth into this because I honestly can't make any sense of your arguments: You're very very wrong. It is freedom of speech under every conceivable definition. There's a reason why there's a Constitutional Amendment (the very first one, if you wanted to look it up) protecting free speech and there's no Constitutional amendment protecting you from getting offended.

Don't like it? Move somewhere else. I'm serious. Don't live in America or call yourself an American if you're not prepared to be offended by other people's expressions once in a while.

Democracy is not easy. In fact, it's supposed to be damn hard. That's what makes it great. I would think as a soldier fighting to uphold said democracy, you would understand that.

Per usual, Subrosa is 100% correct. Inferno's declarations of what he'd "rather" free speech mean, or how he'd prefer it be implemented is precisely why we have an amendment guaranteeing pure speech - to make sure that the sqeemish and/or easily offended do not have the luxury of pretermitting speech with which they disagree. What Sheehan, or anyone else should be saying is absolutely immaterial, as she has no duty to say or to not say anything. We can all agree or disagree with any message at our pleasure. We are free to adopt or dispose of any and every idea in the open market place of ideas. Otherwise, yeah, as Subrosa says - go back to Russia if you don't like it.

I am personally offended by chicken hawks using 9/11 as a billboard for their litany of bad ideas, and I wish they wouldn't exploit a tragedy that hit me personally as a cynical attmept to silence debate and dissent, and to propogate their anti-American policies - but it's up to them to utilize their right to do so.

[Edited on Aug 26, 2005 by Dead_Ringer]

As opposed to the numerous interviews and news stories in which Sheehan has stated her views and why she holds them.

This seems to suggest that such a debate would be for people who haven't been listening. There's really no debate and there's nothing to debate. One side feels they way they feel. The other side feels the way they feel. Honestly...what's to debate here? Is someone going to convince Sheehan that she's not sad about her son's death? or that she doesn't want an audience with the president?

Until someone in the mix runs for a public office, a debate would only serve the appetite of the media for something to fill airtime.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the use of names:

Personally, I would either check with the families to gain their acceptance, or I would avoid it entirely. But at the same time, if you pledge an oath to defend the rights of americans and so forth, you can't be selective about the rights you'll die defending.

That's a very big fucking problem these days.

But it hardly seems the point of this article. It's about a woman who feel strongly about her son's death, and a man who feels strongly about his son's death. And they have different feelings on those deaths. No one is a winner or a loser in some pointless debate; no one is more a villain than anyone else. They're people feel differently about losing their family members in a war.

Sure they can use the names and they can get people pissed and disgusted by it. Ethics not legality is the issue and with some of the talk coming from "Camo Casey" it does show a lack of ethics. A win at all cost mentality, the cause is so important the truth doesn't matter. It wouldn't bother me so much if those were not some of the same acusations they are trying to use against the other side.

There is no such thing as "free speech within reason," and to search for such a concept is not only inviting censorship, but requesting it.

Whether or not you like something is not a reason to make it go away. The law was not supposed to care if something makes you sick to your stomach. This may be a side point to others, but it's the main arena to me on issues like these.

Included in the health of this country is the ability for the Camp Caseys and the Camp Quills to be assholes to everyone, including each other. Yes, this means putting up names of dead kids. It's emotional blackmail - like tossing around pictures of aborted fetuses. Whether or not it's ethical is immaterial to them - these people are all in a "the ends justify the means" mode, and they're not concerned about that.

Interesting. To extend your logic, if a soldier's name is copyright controlled, and the government is the copyright holder, & the people are the government, the people have the right to use the copyright.

as Yoda would say, a fucking break give me.

Well that's all well and good, but if you re-read the post I was replying to you'll see that he was pretty clearly talking about the legal aspects of it. Frankly, it's impossible to use phrases like "should" without the law coming into it at some point.

This is really not an argument. You guys are going to get pissed off, but that's why they're doing what they're doing. Complaining about it just lets those people know that they've won.

Did PETA win when NAACP complaind about comparing chickens to black slaves?
Not the same thing I know, but it was another protest in bad taste.