Where would Mitt Romney stand on free speech zones?

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

Somewhere in Romneys acceptance speech he mentioned free speech as a good thing. The reason Ron Paul wasn't a speaker at the convention was that in order to speak he needed to have his speach pre-approved. The LDS church has a long history of excommunicating (or worse) anyone who says anything negative about the leaders (past or present). As a bishop it's quite likely he was involved in the excommunication process. People don't generally like free speech when that speech is negative towards them. During the Bush years Bush created free speech zones where those who had negative material were rounded up and sent. Is there any reason to assume that Romney won't do the same?

[100%atheist]

Hello,

Somewhere in Romneys acceptance speech he mentioned free speech as a good thing. The reason Ron Paul wasn't a speaker at the convention was that in order to speak he needed to have his speach pre-approved. The LDS church has a long history of excommunicating (or worse) anyone who says anything negative about the leaders (past or present). As a bishop it's quite likely he was involved in the excommunication process. People don't generally like free speech when that speech is negative towards them. During the Bush years Bush created free speech zones where those who had negative material were rounded up and sent. Is there any reason to assume that Romney won't do the same?

Well, maybe Romney is a nice guy and he wants free speach for everyone everywhere? even if it is about his taxes? ...

[dusk]

They let Clint Eastwood talk.
A senile old fool that is what represents the Republican party apparently.

Honestly how much worse could Ron Paul have been.

Would have been interesting. That convention had so much embarrassing stuff in it, it wouldn't really have mattered.

I don't think it is Romney it is the party. Full of old white angry people that never left the cold war behind. When I watch that thing I feel like the US is the only country in the first world that is still in mid 19th century on political maturity, or well a frightening half of the country is.
There is a part of America that is extremely critical of itself and another part that has no self reflection. First time I learned in school about the time frame of US segregation, I was shocked. With all those war movies I have seen about the WW2 how could they come over to Germany see all the stuff racists did and need almost two more decades to deal with their own racism.

[dianaiad]

They let Clint Eastwood talk.
A senile old fool that is what represents the Republican party apparently.

Honestly how much worse could Ron Paul have been.

Would have been interesting. That convention had so much embarrassing stuff in it, it wouldn't really have mattered.

I don't think it is Romney it is the party. Full of old white angry people that never left the cold war behind. When I watch that thing I feel like the US is the only country in the first world that is still in mid 19th century on political maturity, or well a frightening half of the country is.

The mid nineteenth century wasn't a good place to be, politically. Civil wars and slaughter all over the place.

Come to think of it, the mid 20th century had that problem, too....and y'know what?
Republicans got America OUT of both problems, with their 'old-fashioned values.'

Y'know, I know that I'm old and all, but there is something to be said for that. I can see the generations behind me and the ones in front, and if there's one thing that is obvious, it's that people don't change.

The values that worked for one generation (like freedom of speech, of religion, or assembly, to vote, to dream and to achieve) work for all of 'em. There is no dramatic change in the DNA of the generation just flexing it's political muscles that makes their judgment any better, nor worse, than mine, or the one mine rebelled against.

I have to tell you though....it does serve US right to see the 'younger folk' come up and call US 'old angry white people.'

Remember us? WE are the folks who got the civil rights bills through? WE are the ones who marched with King, WE are the ones who did the sit-ins and the demonstrations.

............to watch y'all dismiss us as 'angry white people,' the way we used to dismiss the generation that came before us...you know, the generation that fought WWII and lived through the Depression and dealt, with courage and honor we didn't understand or accept....I guess most of us deserve the turn around. That we deserve the attitude doesn't, however, make that attitude correct.

You are no different than we were. No righteous revelation that will turn the human condition to sweetness and light have you.

.......................................and the old folks are not 'angry white people'...BTW, the majority of the speakers at the RNC were angry, yes...and people...but not 'white' in the way YOU use the term. Shoot, there were more minority speakers...solid elected officials...at the RNC than there are at the DNC.

There is a part of America that is extremely critical of itself and another part that has no self reflection. First time I learned in school about the time frame of US segregation, I was shocked. With all those war movies I have seen about the WW2 how could they come over to Germany see all the stuff racists did and need almost two more decades to deal with their own racism.

Ask the Democrats, Fuzzy. They were responsible for that.

[bluethread]

They let Clint Eastwood talk.
A senile old fool that is what represents the Republican party apparently.

Honestly how much worse could Ron Paul have been.

Would have been interesting. That convention had so much embarrassing stuff in it, it wouldn't really have mattered.

I don't think it is Romney it is the party. Full of old white angry people that never left the cold war behind. When I watch that thing I feel like the US is the only country in the first world that is still in mid 19th century on political maturity, or well a frightening half of the country is.
There is a part of America that is extremely critical of itself and another part that has no self reflection. First time I learned in school about the time frame of US segregation, I was shocked. With all those war movies I have seen about the WW2 how could they come over to Germany see all the stuff racists did and need almost two more decades to deal with their own racism.

They let Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton talk.
Two senile old fools that represent the Democrat party apparently.

Honestly how much worse could John Edwards have been.

Would have been interesting. That convention had so much embarrassing stuff in it, it wouldn't really have mattered and it isn't even over yet.

I don't think it is Obama it is the party. Full of old white angry people that never left the civil war behind. When I watch that thing I feel like the US is the only country in the first world that is still in mid 19th century on political maturity, or well a frightening half of the country is.
There is a part of America that is extremely critical of itself and another part that has no self reflection. First time I learned in school about the time frame of US fascism, I was shocked. With all those war movies I have seen about the WW2 how could they come over to Germany see all the stuff fascists did and need almost seven more decades to deal with their own fascism.

[Nilloc James]

I do not think wishing to pre-screen a speech at an event you (the the republican party in this case) run is a violation of free speech.

Free speech is people's right to make their opinions known through their means or the means provided to them (e.g. news, publishing, other media) - not the right to speak at an event they do not control nor organized.

It just seems like a cheap ploy to make not having Ron Paul speak into a freedom of speech issue.

[East of Eden]

They let Clint Eastwood talk.
A senile old fool that is what represents the Republican party apparently.

Honestly how much worse could Ron Paul have been.

Would have been interesting. That convention had so much embarrassing stuff in it, it wouldn't really have mattered.

I don't think it is Romney it is the party. Full of old white angry people that never left the cold war behind. When I watch that thing I feel like the US is the only country in the first world that is still in mid 19th century on political maturity, or well a frightening half of the country is.
There is a part of America that is extremely critical of itself and another part that has no self reflection. First time I learned in school about the time frame of US segregation, I was shocked. With all those war movies I have seen about the WW2 how could they come over to Germany see all the stuff racists did and need almost two more decades to deal with their own racism.

They let Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton talk.
Two senile old fools that represent the Democrat party apparently.

Yes, one of them was impeached and had credible charges of rape against him.

[East of Eden]

Hello,

Somewhere in Romneys acceptance speech he mentioned free speech as a good thing. The reason Ron Paul wasn't a speaker at the convention was that in order to speak he needed to have his speach pre-approved. The LDS church has a long history of excommunicating (or worse) anyone who says anything negative about the leaders (past or present). As a bishop it's quite likely he was involved in the excommunication process. People don't generally like free speech when that speech is negative towards them. During the Bush years Bush created free speech zones where those who had negative material were rounded up and sent. Is there any reason to assume that Romney won't do the same?

Ron Paul needed to endorse Romney in order to speak and he wouldn't do it. What, did he just want a platform to run in '16?

Romney was a much greater defender of free speech in the recent Mideast riot controversy than the disgraceful statement of Obama's administration criticizing the innocent film maker.

[chris_brown207]

Hello,

Somewhere in Romneys acceptance speech he mentioned free speech as a good thing. The reason Ron Paul wasn't a speaker at the convention was that in order to speak he needed to have his speach pre-approved. The LDS church has a long history of excommunicating (or worse) anyone who says anything negative about the leaders (past or present). As a bishop it's quite likely he was involved in the excommunication process. People don't generally like free speech when that speech is negative towards them. During the Bush years Bush created free speech zones where those who had negative material were rounded up and sent. Is there any reason to assume that Romney won't do the same?

Ron Paul needed to endorse Romney in order to speak and he wouldn't do it. What, did he just want a platform to run in '16?

Romney was a much greater defender of free speech in the recent Mideast riot controversy than the disgraceful statement of Obama's administration criticizing the innocent film maker.

Not to be critical here, or argumentative, and I know that this isn't even the point of the OP, but - you do realize that those statements made by the State Department were made BEFORE the attack on the embassy ever took place?

I think it would behoove a few of the political attack websites out there to do a bi-partisan fact check prior to going public with unfounded attacks.

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-gets-it-backward/

[East of Eden]

Hello,

Somewhere in Romneys acceptance speech he mentioned free speech as a good thing. The reason Ron Paul wasn't a speaker at the convention was that in order to speak he needed to have his speach pre-approved. The LDS church has a long history of excommunicating (or worse) anyone who says anything negative about the leaders (past or present). As a bishop it's quite likely he was involved in the excommunication process. People don't generally like free speech when that speech is negative towards them. During the Bush years Bush created free speech zones where those who had negative material were rounded up and sent. Is there any reason to assume that Romney won't do the same?

Ron Paul needed to endorse Romney in order to speak and he wouldn't do it. What, did he just want a platform to run in '16?

Romney was a much greater defender of free speech in the recent Mideast riot controversy than the disgraceful statement of Obama's administration criticizing the innocent film maker.

Not to be critical here, or argumentative, and I know that this isn't even the point of the OP, but - you do realize that those statements made by the State Department were made BEFORE the attack on the embassy ever took place?

I think it would behoove a few of the political attack websites out there to bookmark a bi-partisan fact check website prior to embarrassing themselves by going public with their attacks.

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-gets-it-backward/

The sequence nit-picking is completely irrelevant to the appalling statement that went out blaming the filmmaker:

"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

There is never an appropriate time for the government to say that. Since when is making a film an 'abuse of free speech'? Unless our speech rights suddenly got drastically restricted, there was no abuse. Does the job of the State Department now include film critic? The problem was 100% with the Muslim thugs rioting and praising Bin Laden, and the Egyptian government that encouraged them. Embassies being attacked all over the area, this crazy statement going out, yet the problem is Romney.

Give me a break.....They attack our embassy, kill our ambassador, burn our flag, and write Bin Laden's name on the embassy wall, yet they are ones offended. That is insanity. Someone needs to stand up to these criminals, perhaps a new president will.

Everyone was supposed to like us now that Obama is in office, how's that working out?