Sam Harris

[quote author=“Iisbliss”]bah, I still think he has a right in a free country to say what he thinks, and that is what universities about about, thought, and free thought and opinion. I don’t think anyone really disputes this. But Churchill is a liar, not simply expressing a challenging or unpopular opinion. He has also faked evidence and been accused of plagiarism (all before the current controversy, I might add). It’s not a free speech issue at all. Why should anyone who fakes evidence and spreads outright lies about history be allowed to “teach” at a public university?

and Micheal Moore is a propagandist, even when I agree somewhat with what he says, I can’t support the way he says it, and to me that also invalidates the message.

Why isn’t Churchill then invalidated by the same standard?

bah, I still think he has a right in a free country to say what he thinks, and that is what universities about about, thought, and free thought and opinion.

If his interest was in free thought, free speach or intellectual integrity, I doubt he would have his attorney negotiating a buyout with the university. Get a grip.

Get a grip? Did you read your Social Security statement where it says “Privitization is the only way to save Social Security?”

There are lies and lies, and some of the most egragarious lies in our history have come from our own government.  He stated an opinion, he has no power to force you to accept it.  This wasnt even near on the scale of propaganda, which we have seen a ton of in our lifetimes. 

I don’t see alot of outrage over the internet ad by the supporters of the Swiftboat vets that implied that the AARP supported gays and not veterans.
This was a blatant attempt to discredit the AARP because of their failure to support the President’s plan for Social Security reform.

Why no outrage?  Isn’t that claim just as outlandish as his? Isn’t it a lie?  Why hasnt anyone been fired over this?  Isn’t this type of propaganda and lies MORE dangerous than what Churchhill wrote?  Who really has the POWER to influence public opinion?  Isnt that what we should be focusing on? Where the power and the money is where the country will go.

I still dont get why some distortions that have NO power are ignored for the ones that do.  To me this whole Churchhill thing is a tempest in teapot, a distraction, and the only alarming thing is that people are getting upset about what is basically a non-issue, or an issue of freedom of speech at best.

Anyway I am still disturbed by the Shut the hell up mentality of this whole circus.

And with all this scandal, his effectiveness at the university indeed his options for further employment for saying what he thought are indeed seriously impinged, all because of a media circus, so yes I can see why he would negotiate a buyout.  In no way do I believe when he orginally wrote his essay or started his activism did he have a diaboloical plan to PROFIT from it. 

I can more easily believe that “Privatization” of Social Security will lead to profits for the the Wall Street money managers and banks, (as it did in Britian and some other countries)  and that THIS is KNOWN from the beginning of the plan, and quite possibly one of the motivations FOR this plan and against the others that address the future demographic changes.

“Media is like the weather, only its man-made.”

PS. in the 70s when we had the “gas” crisis and oil hit record high prices, the oil companies got smacked with something called the “windfall profits tax”.  I am still trying to figure out what is actually going on with the price of crude oil .

[quote author=“Iisbliss”]There are lies and lies, and some of the most egragarious lies in our history have come from our own government.  He stated an opinion, he has no power to force you to accept it.  This wasnt even near on the scale of propaganda, which we have seen a ton of in our lifetimes.

I was referring to the lies he told in the course of his academic work and about his background during the stage of getting hired. I already posted the links relevant to this. Churchill faked evidence in a paper, has been credibly accused of plagiarism, and misrepresented his background to get a teaching position. All of those are firing offenses, quite apart from his opinions. I agree that absent his 9/11 statements, he probably would still have a job, but that is not a good thing. I can’t feel sorry for the guy; if he were otherwise an honest teacher who was being targeted for unpopular views, then I would oppose firing him. The attention he called to himself with the current controversy has served to expose his academic misdeeds and out him as a charlatan.

Which, if you think about it, is exactly how free speech is meant to work. It sorts wheat from chafe. In the end, Churchill has only himself to blame.

From what I got from following this story, was that he was very active in a illegal attempt to disrupt a Columbus Day parade, which is a pretty common axe Native Americans like to grind.

Because he pissed people off with his Columbus Day antics, and made some enemies, his next misstep was taken to the national media.

As for lying on his resume, and plagerism, indeed we should hold people accountable for these kinds of misrepresentations, and when you get caught you should pay the price, and yes, it is ultimately only his own fault.

My concern is the process.  Why wasnt this all investigated after his participation in the parade?  Are we using a double standard here?  The first issue to go public nationally certainly had nothing to do with what has been found out since then.  Why this man, and this essay in the public arena?  Surely there are thousands of liars on resumes and plagarists out there.  There is a manipulation and an agenda here, IMO, as there is with most “opinion” based news stories on BOTH the “liberal” and “conservative” side, and THAT is what I am concerned with.

Iisbliss said:

To me this whole Churchhill thing is a tempest in teapot, a distraction, and the only alarming thing is that people are getting upset about what is basically a non-issue, or an issue of freedom of speech at best.

Anyway I am still disturbed by the Shut the hell up mentality of this whole circus.

Having read every post in this thread I don’t see the shut up menality you are referring to. I have not seen a single post which challenges Churhill’s right to say what he thinks although many have challenged his credibility and honesty. I don’t agree that this is “an issue of free speech at best”. The issue is whether a professor should abuse his priveledged and protected position of tenure as a platform to abuse that right to free speech and at the taxpayer’s expense. Academic freedom and the right to free speech should not be interpreted as an immunity from the consequences of such speech including ridicule and criticism.

[quote author=“Iisbliss”]My concern is the process.  Why wasnt this all investigated after his participation in the parade?  Are we using a double standard here?  The first issue to go public nationally certainly had nothing to do with what has been found out since then.  Why this man, and this essay in the public arena?  Surely there are thousands of liars on resumes and plagarists out there.  There is a manipulation and an agenda here, IMO, as there is with most “opinion” based news stories on BOTH the “liberal” and “conservative” side, and THAT is what I am concerned with.

But this is exactly what free speech is supposed to do. The whole point of it is to enable the polity to sort out liars and other enemies of truth by allowing them to expose and discredit themselves.

Freedom of speech is not supposed to make people like Churchill off limits; its purpose is not to make lies and facts equal in the public mind, or to suspend judgment on the question of truth. The right to be heard is not the right to be taken seriously, or to be free from criticism. The Founders’ whole idea was that the truth would sort itself out without government defining it, since govt can’t be trusted to do so.

The principle of free speech contains the implicit recognition that ideas are not all equally valid. Without that recognition constantly in force, nonsense gets treated as fact, and the polity is thus worse informed. The whole point is that when nonsense and lies are exposed via free speech, they get abandoned, discredited and left in the trash where they belong, along with those demagogues who cling to them and thus hold society back.

Churchill used his free speech rights to perpetrate lies, and he kept doing it til he got caught. Now, he suffers the consequences not of his political ideas, but of his deception. After he’s fired, he’ll be free to continue speaking his mind. He just won’t be allowed to spend our money spreading false information anymore.

This is how the system was supposed to work.

I agree that this is how it is SUPPOSED to work.

I argue that in the last 20 years, it is Broke = )