| jv103 said: Rocketpig: "That's the entire problem... Yes, these people "invited" this on themselves. Yes, they're ignorant. But arbitrary lines drawn in the sand aren't an acceptable solution either because then you have to ask the question "who gets to draw the line?" and that creates another set of questions with no good answers..." Hey Rocketpig do you feel that people are becoming more interested in just testing what they can say, rather than saying anything of import? Or is the act of testing free speech, the whole point of having free speech. I just keep seeing things like this story (I know its the kids name, but the other one is called Aryan Nation ---I mean should I be able to adopt and call my son or daughter the n word?) about free speech and people with little common sense, hiding behind it because they can. Partly I blame the media, because it fuels this fire of nonsense. I'm pretty sure most of these people would lose interest if they couldn't get their ridiculous messages out. This reminds me of that Christmas thing in Washington. They let people put up an Atheist Sign and now someone wants to put up a festivus pole. Personally I think its just more dumb people. Even though I'm not a Christian or anything I can see how one would take offense because its an attempt to denigrate ones beliefs. Question: Do people actually do this stuff just to see if they can do it, get their fifteen minutes of fame, and when does free speech impose on another. ( Naming a child seems to be something that would fall under speech, I guess because you would be constantly saying it in public [in the white supremacists case, to push their agenda] writing it down, having it in the school year book etc.) Can you restrict what names are given to a child? Who would have thought this would be a relevant discussion. (Although this is just an aberration and not the norm.) |
Excellent points again, jv. I meant to respond to your first post and didn't get around to it. Without knowing them, I absolutely believe these people named their children what they did as much for the shock value as what they actually believe, which brings up an interesting debate of "when does free speech/action become inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory?", which is more akin to defending one's yelling of "fire" in a crowded theatre than it is any kind of political statement.
It's a slippery slope. I'm more inclined on the personal freedom side of things and to stay off that slope as much as possible, but it's a tough call to make, especially for something as inconsequential and probably attention-grabbing flamebait as this situation.
As for the Christmas thing, the Atheist Pole is bullshit. Pure and simple. I'm not religious in the slightest bit (actually, I despise almost all organized religions) but any attempt to push in on a religious holiday (when your "religion" has no link to the time/date of any kind) is slimy and frankly, insulting to Christians. You want to fight for a Chanukkah monument? Rock it, that's an important holiday for Jews. Eid al-Hada or Hajj? Again, go for it. That time has significance to Muslims as well. Not to distract from this already tangential conversation, but that's one of my biggest problems with many Atheists and Agnostics: their ultimate desire is not to celebrate their own beliefs, but instead to bring down others' beliefs to their "level". It's petty and shows just how intellectually "enlightened" many of those people really are.
Anyway, to bring it back around, no. You cannot restrict childrens' names in any way, shape, or form. Preventing people from publicly espousing stupidity does not cure the stupidity itself, nor will it cure one damned problem in society. All it does is whitewash that ignorance and push it underground, where it will ultimately fester and probably turn violent at one point or another. Let the ignorance rain loud and proud. The only thing a free society can do is educate the vast majority and hope for the best.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/
