Right-wing blogs attack Lara Logan after tragic incident

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Right now, I'm truly disgusted and ashamed of people within my own party who are either blaming Lara Logan for the brutal rape and assault that she endured or chalking it up to karma.

Two blogs - The Gateway Pundit and DebbieSchlussel.com - have both taken different but equally awful approaches to discussing what happened to Lara Logan.

First, a portion of the entry from Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit:

Lara Logan is lucky she’s alive.
Her liberal belief system almost got her killed on Friday. This talented reporter will never be the same.

Why did this attractive blonde female reporter wander into Tahrir Square last Friday? Why would she think this was a good idea? Did she not see the violence in the square the last three weeks? Did she not see the rock throwing? Did she miss the camels? Did her colleagues tell her about the Western journalists who were viciously assaulted on the Square? Did she forget about the taunts from the Egyptian thugs the day before? What was she thinking? Was it her political correctness that about got her killed? Did she think things would be different for her?

[Source]

Next, the entry from Debbie Schlussel:

As I’ve noted before, it bothers me not a lick when mainstream media reporters who keep telling us Muslims and Islam are peaceful get a taste of just how “peaceful” Muslims and Islam really are. In fact, it kinda warms my heart. Still, it’s also a great reminder of just how “civilized” these “people” (or, as I like to call them in Arabic, “Bahai’im” [Animals]) are...

[Source]

Schlussel also posted an update after receiving reaction on the entry:

The reaction of the left to this article is funny in its predictability. Sooo damn predictable. Of course I don’t support “sexual assault” or violence against Lara Logan, and I said that nowhere here. RIF–Reading Is Fundamental. Your premature articulation is a problem. I did say that it warms my heart when reporters who openly deny that Islam is violent and constantly promote it get the same kinds of threats of violence I get every day from Muslims. Because now they know how it feels. They aren’t so dismissive of the threats when those threats are directed at them, instead of at us little people. And yet they still won’t admit that THIS. IS. ISLAM. Lara Logan was among the chief cheerleaders of this “revolution” by animals. Now she knows what Islamic revolution is really all about.

Hoft chose a more "misogyny-on-parade" approach, focusing on her looks and asking condescending hypothetical questions about why she was there, as if her presence gave anyone the right to touch her in the first place. Schlussel, on the other hand, seems to imply that Logan's abuse was deserved based on an allegedly naive attitude about what the people were like and how they'd treat her.

It seems people have taken a casual attitude about rape in the past few years, and that's really bothersome. No wonder rapes go unreported in the world, when you have morons like these playing the victim-blame game.

EDIT: Seems it gets worse when you read the rest of Schlussel's entry:

So sad, too bad, Lara. No one told her to go there. She knew the risks. And she should have known what Islam is all about. Now she knows. Or so we'd hope. But in the case of the media vis-a-vis Islam, that's a hope that's generally unanswered.

This never happened to her or any other mainstream media reporter when Mubarak was allowed to treat his country of savages in the only way they can be controlled.

Now that's all gone. How fitting that Lara Logan was "liberated" by Muslims in Liberation Square while she was gushing over the other part of the "liberation."

Hope you're enjoying the revolution, Lara! Alhamdilllullah [praise allah].

[Source]

I want so badly to punch Debbie Schlussel in the face over and over and over again...

Comments

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

I'm not knocking democracy, I'm knocking the lack of free speech, though Spaz Own Joo perhaps hit it (people think it comes automatically with democracy).

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Well of course we do, we pretty much all live in democracies. In principle of course the 2 can be seperated.

But there's also a fairly good argument, that if you want to give everyone an equal voice and make decisions based on what the majority want (which seems to be what people in Egypt want), the simplest way to do that is to present decisions to the people, devise a way for them to indicate their preference (like writing on a piece of paper and sticking in a box), then count up all the preferences and declaring which way you are going to go on the issue.

Or if that's too difficult because there is so many people and so many issues to decide, instead you get them to do exactly the same thing to regularly choose people they think best represents their position, and then get those representative to do all the sticking things in boxes for them.

Sound like anything you know about?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

They have elections in Russia and Venezuela.
I don't think they have anything like the First Amendment in their constitution.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Democracy doesn't imply free speech.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I realise I misread this statement:

I'm not knocking democracy, I'm knocking the lack of free speech, though Spaz Own Joo perhaps hit it (people think it comes automatically with democracy).

I thought you were saying that having free speech is important, but that having democracy is not; or at least it's not necessarily the ideal companion political system to accompany free speech.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

I'm convincing myself that constitutionally guaranteed free speech is in fact more important. I'm even convincing myself that it would (eventually) lead to a serious reduction in the oppression of women, though perhaps I'm dreaming.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Plenty of oppressive states had or have free speech. Including the USSR.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

The USSR had free speech?
When was this?

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Citizens of the USSR had a constitutional right to freedom of speech, enumerated in the Soviet constitution all the way from 1917 until the collapse of Soviet Union.

Just like the freedom of speech in other nations, there were however exceptions to this right where it could lawfully be limited...

This of course, illustrates the importance of the system of government that we entrust with protecting these rights.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

I have never heard this. I was under the impression that the media was controlled by the government.

...

The internet is telling me that you are correct.


Obviously, they found away around that.

...

This page (http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/cc-books.html) has an interesting take:

At first glance, it would appear that the citizens of the USSR had more rights than their American counterparts. Stalin's constitution guaranteed the people the right to work, the right to rest and leisure (no overtime), maintenance in old age (Social Security), right to education, economic equality, right to form unions, right to privacy, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press. Unfortunately, the constitution doesn't explain exactly how these freedoms are guaranteed.

For instance, the US Constitution grants freedom of speech with the following paragraph:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


The USSR constitution grants in citizens freedom of speech with this passage:

In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed by law:
a. freedom of speech;
b. freedom of the press;
c. freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
d. freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

Notice the difference?

Our freedom of speech is guaranteed because our constitution says that congress "shall make no law" that infringes on that freedom. All of our rights are guaranteed in this manner... by explaining what it is exactly that the government can't do. Phrases like "shall make no law", "shall not be violated", and "shall not be infringed" are pretty straightforward and leave little room for interpretation -- Your rights are protected because government is prohibited from passing any laws in these areas.

On the other hand, the "rights" granted to the citizens of the USSR are in fact a list of things that the government must do - The government must give you a job ... the government must give you health care ... the government must give you an education ... and (since the state owns all machinery) the government must give you a printing press for you to practice your freedom speech. But of course, if you aren't working "to strengthen the socialist system", don't hold your breath waiting for your printing press.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

And so in the end, the statement "The USSR had free speech" is essentially incorrect.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

But that overlooks the point I was making.

The fact is, constitutionally, the USSR had free speech. You asserted that constitutional free speech was more important that the mode of government.

I appreciate your points about positive provision of rights by the government, versus prohibition against violation of rights by the government, but I don't find that argument convincing that it makes all the difference. The fact is, the U.S. government ensures your rights are protected and can be exercised through its own numerous positive actions (for example, putting police on the streets, providing you with a lawyer if you don't have one, reading you your Miranda rights when arrested, FUNDING POLITICAL ACTIVITY), not merely by preventing itself or others from violating your rights.

Ask yourself, if the Soviet constitution had enumerated and protected rights in the same prohibitive fashion as the U.S. constitution does, would that really have made sufficient difference to guarantee that Soviet citizens had genuine right to speak freely?

That is essentially the conclusion that should be drawn from your argument, but I find it rather absurd to suppose that re-writing the Soviet constitution would have made such a difference, don't you?

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Really, it all boils down to those last 2 paragraphs I wrote.

Would it have made a difference in the Soviet Union, if their Constitution said "the Supreme Soviet shall not abridge the right to free speech"?

Or rather, operating with the political system that they did, would they have instead simply found an escape clause to justify ignoring that and heard not a word of protest from any of the factions with real power, who all had a vested interest in the people shutting their traps?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

There's definitely something additional - the Soviet Union controlled people's jobs and incomes. It wasn't possible for someone to start their own newspaper (w/o government funding) and one might presume that outspoken critics could find their new job being shoveling horse poop.

So yes, I would agree that "freedom of speech" by itself isn't necessarily going to disable an oppressive government (in particular, the Soviet government.)


Would it have made a difference in the Soviet Union, if their Constitution said "the Supreme Soviet shall not abridge the right to free speech"?

So that I'm clear: no.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Also, a specific example which provides excellent evidence contrary to the assertion that that democracy and free speech are separable, is that Australia has no constitutional enumerated right to freedom of speech.

Yet it has been ruled, in increasing clarity by successive Supreme Courts, that citizens having the right to vote democratically enshrined in the Australian constitution and being that "public affairs and political discussion are indivisible"; for this right to vote to be exercised effectively implies a guarantee of freedom of communication on all political AND economic matters, at all levels of federal, state and local law.

In other words, they ruled that citizens cannot effectively exercise their right to vote in a democratic election, without having a guarantee of free speech that must be upheld by every court in the land.

Thus it is the considered opinion of Australia's highest court that democracy implies and requires citizens have a right to free speech.

Despite having no constitutional right to free speech, living in a democratic nation means you can lawfully defame someone in Australia if the statement you make is political in nature (including in a very broad sense anything which relates to public affairs, such as economic commentary). Virtually the only kind of speech not protected is commercial speech devoid of political content.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

If the dictator wanabe president has the courts in his favor, those rulings wouldn't come about.