Caty Royce, Bancroft wrote: I'm more concerned with Mr. Graham's use of the "shot at" anaology. He stated several times that he felt a public figure was ripe for being "shot at." With the violence seemingly ruling this society, more and more frequently, all over, locally and globally, I would hope that we can utilize language that does not encourage violent thought.
Michelle Hill responds: What is this world coming to when semantics are taken as a threat on someone's life. We beat this debate to death in the Hodges/Samuels issue that crossed the line from free speech to an attempt to charge Hodges with a crime. If saying constituents can "take a shot" at a political figure on this forum is construed as a death threat, what is this world coming to? Mr. Graham was clear about verbalizing an opinion in his post, and in no way made the reader believe that he advocated violence. That is just ludicrous. PS: When I say "beat this debate to death" I mean conversations, back and forth, on the issue are old and worn out. Michelle Hill Cleveland REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
