Antiwar and Anti-Bush Rally

*smacks forehead*

Do you jump to all conclusions, or just most?

Let me post another part of the post that got your panties in a bunch when I said that the memorial is not an alternative site.



I'm done with you...

- Ace

Thank you, Wiggle... At least there are some who understand where I'm coming from.

- Ace

Seems fairly clear and simple to me, but some equate respecting the fallen soldiers with a political agenda of "WAR IS GREAT, WAR IS FUN."

Neualtenburg was to be an experiment about a governmental system within and about SL...no one said anything about no free speech . The fact remains that bringing real world politics to Neualtenburg is clearly a conflict of interest and will only undermine the experiment. If you want to have two parties in Neualtenburg fine...I'm all for it. We can debate and fight over every possible SL problem. What Neualtenburg could be is immence...I remember talking with Ulrika and saying if this works we could expand to our own sim and then even further. Bringing real life agenda's to the experiment will only destroy it. We have a chance here to really do something. Fight your real life wars anywhere you want...why destroy the opportunity that we have.

The fact that I donated 8000 meters to this project says a lot. I didn't do it so I could seem important or because I wanted to further my real life agenda's ...I did it because I thought there was a possibility that it could work and even work well.

I do, Kathy. And I assure you if that becomes the case I will withdraw my total support from Neualtenburg completely. I would hope to continue working with you or Ulrika on other projects if you or she is amenable, but I will not be bullied into silence by people who fail to grasp what free speech means.

Neualtenburg is designed to be a real living breathing city existing within SL. If it simply becomes a "toy" within a "game" then it loses all appeal to me. If it becomes merely a shopping mall with political window-dressing then it's worthless.

I would rather have active people who disagree with me completely on political issues involved, then to inhabit and build a city that prefers everyone be quiet and not "rock the boat".

<sigh>

You characterized political protest as some sort of defilement of dead American soldiers.

"I'll ban the whole damn world before I will allow politics to bespoil the memory of those men and women."

I have no issue with you're stand on the war. This isn't the question at hand. My argument is that if you stand against public speech in a public space, you canNOT justify it logically, theologically, or ethically by saying it defiles American soldiers.

Regardless of how it would make YOU feel to see such protest, you aren't every American soldier living and dead, nor every American. If you intend to make a public space celebrating America, then you must accept the more unattractive parts of America equally.

However, you have now said that your space is private. If that's the case, then you are certainly welcome to limit whatever speech you like within it's boundaries.

In America, there is NEVER a PUBLIC space that is inappropriate for political speech.

Make no mistake: American soldiers die specifically for that right. If they are there for any OTHER purpose (and this is exactly the point of my current anti-war protest) then they are being murdered by their own leaders.

No, Ace, I do not want to fight you. Certainly not over what you think I mean here. But I will fight the current trend to classify all unattractive political speech as unAmerican and excremental. If there’s been some sort of miscommunication between you and I on this point, and I am simply not reading you correctly, PLEASE say so. I’ll jump back like a cat from a sprinkler.


And, just because I'm curious, do you have some sort of issue with my religious affiliation?

Ummm sacred places?

Ever heard of sacred?

Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.

Sacred to the memory of fallen soldiers... Not politics

Why not three parties? Why not four parties? I'm not opposed to any opinion within the community of Neualtenburg. Why not a party that seeks to silence all RW matter from the city? Or a party that seeks to make Neualtenburg neutral on all matters except city commerce? How about the formation of a Political Party in Neualtenburg that feels RW issues (like war or internet censorship) could perhaps encroach upon the welfare of our city? There is room for us all, but it doesn't mean we all need to agree on every event that takes place within the walls of Neualtenburg.

Uh...actually, you might want to re-read (or read) my argument here. It has nothing to do with Bush, or interpreting the Constitution. It has to do with public speech and the role of American soldiers - either in battle or as representations of certain people's patriotic fervor.

My admittedly acerbic remark about Lektor's reticence to recount his oath (assuming he made one - some folks have religious reservations against oaths) has to do with his reluctance to admit that an American soldier's primary duty is to defend that piece of paper and the principles that it embodies. Anything else is secondary. That means they specifically fight to defend our right to speak in public - however repulsively. That means they die to defend our abhorrence against gay marriage, even, if that makes it into the Constitution (heaven forefend).

It is wrong - or at least confusing - for the honor of American soldiers to be used as an explanation against political speech in a public space. That's my argument. Any questions?

Anything else you read into this is your own problem.

And, yes, I know Ace has declared it as private property. So the issue is pretty much dead - or rhetorical at this point.

Actually, quite public property, except for one...

- Ace

No we don't have to agree on every event...BUT...by having events such as these people will leave the project and those not involved will not want to become part of it. Real life good can come of this experiment if only we choose to handle it the right way. This event could be held anywhere...why does it have to be Neualtenburg. It will push people away and eventually it will just be a handful of people running the city...in the end it will wither and die.

Well, I'm not picking on you Wiggles, but there are no sacred public places in America. At least not Constitutionally protected ones.

And American soldiers die for the Constitution, and for no other reason - at least no Constitutionally valid reasons.

And "sacred" has to do with religion - not America.

Ace,

"Public" does not equal "Public Invited."

If it's truly public, you can't ban one - or any - person.

Sacred is not only a religeous thing, no.

And just because there is no law telling you to not go there or not do something doesnt mean that you should walk all over it. Are you one of those people that gets right up in someones face because it isnt against the law? Waving a finger in someons face because it isnt against the law? Disrespecting people because it isnt against the law?

Some things law does not define and it takes respect to dictate these areas.

Wiggle,

Well said. I'm normally completely in agreement with Kathy when she speaks in these forums, but in this case I find it difficult to believe what I am reading. A memorial is not necessarily religious, but it does represent a quiet place where people can contemplate those who have lost their lives. To defile it with political protest (*any* monument, *any* political protest) seems to be to be utterly tasteless and insensitive.

ummm… sure… we see exactly what you are saying kendra… try again!

Ever heard of Arlington National Cemetary?




WHereas Arlington and related cemetaries are government owned they are open to the public which by default makes them a public place

Well, let's see Kathy.. so many hole sin your arguments that I barely know where to start or stop.

There ARE sacred places in America - written or not into the Constitution which has been established by the Supreme Court to be 1) falacious argumentatively on its face, 2)counter to American values over time and 3) merely a guideline not a "be all and end all" document for America.

Sacred places include - if not by Constitutional law, then by legislative and/or Executive Mandates - courtrooms (which can be cleared of any/all non-essential personnel at the discretion of the presiding judge. certain military posts (which deny access to those the government has not specifically granted access to), jails (which deny access by the civilian population which is not incarcerated or specifially authorized entry), etc....

As for Bush or not Bush.... you missed it.. I ACCUSED YOU of acting as you and others are accusing Bush of acting. You obviously overlooked that.... fairly conveniently if I do say so.

Deal with those.. we can deal with the other issues later.

No, Wiggles, I am not "one of those people."

I WILL react when someone calls me unAmerican, or when they attempt to poison my rights as an American by coloring MY use of those rights as fundamentally beneath THEIR use of those same rights.

That is as much an attack against the Constitution as anything else.

And, for those who were curious, here is that actual oath, I took, all those dead soldiers took, and some of the participants in this discussion took:

"I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Pardon my simple-mindedness, but I took this seriously. The ONLY thing that makes America special are the principles on that document. That's why it is the ONLY thing our soldiers swear to support and defend. We don't swear allegiance to the president, or a party, or a chunk of land, or a religion. Those soldiers died for what's written on that paper. And that paper says Americans get to say what they think. Period. In any public place. That's all.

If you want to try to find a way around that, then I suppose I'll continue to fight.

Well, Kathy if you cant understand why this memorial isnt a place to hold a political rally, YOU ARE one of those people.

Okay --now at least we're having a dialogue. I like dialogues.
If I am to understand you correctly --it is your belief that RW issues should be kept out of Neualtenburg completely?

Would you change your mind if, let's say. the current administration proposed a ban on all politically based internet activity in the interests of homeland security? How about if they began taxing all internet commerce, including moneys exchanged in cyber environments? Where exactly would one draw the line?

Is it instead your opinion that it is this one issue of Anti-War Anti-Bush that should be kept out of Neualtenburg? In the midst of the campaign I might have agreed with you, and didn't push any events in that direction as it would have indeed been a little too inflammatory, now we are dealing with something different.

If a person in Canada (as an example) wished to hold a protest on what he/she believed to be United States imperialism because she/he was worried how such rampant war-mongering affected her life and the lives of innocents would that be okay?

If yes --then why not in Neualtenburg?

Is it your worry that as high-profile members of Neualtenburg, Ulrika and myself are sending what could be percieved as a "clear message" that Neualtenburg is a city that represents left-wing views only? While it's certainly true that both Ulrika and I represent the interests of the SDF within the community of Neualtenburg, we don't pretend to be the only interests in the community.

Any person or group within the city is entitled to free speech, but it certainly up to that person or group to speak.

Billy --picking two quotes out of context doesn't make you correct or clever. Go back to sleep.

Are you sure someone with opposing views wouldnt be stifled? Lol I find that pretty funny the way someone such as myself gets told that hes a frog in tepid water when I try to discuss something like the patriot act II.

Hell, I am a leaning left centrist and I get jumped on like I'm Jerry Falwell or something. I somehow doubt that this would be an objective thing.

I can only be sure that it would be my aim to make it that way. I can't gurantee it, but then the Neualtenburg Projekt is an experiment isn't it.

There may be reasons to expect that it wouldnt work out well.