President Trump to visit 2017 Jamboree

[Stosh]

I'm misunderstanding something here. You're saying that what these leaders do matters more than what they say, but you mentioned how memorable they are because of what they said. Do you think Trump will or won't be remembered by his words over his actions?

 

They did what they said they would do in spite of all the flack from distractors.  With all he "fake news", riots, hate speech, protests, and such, the economy is growing, unemployment is down and help wanted signs are posted on just about every other business in our town.  All this amid the squalor of today's political culture.  Lincoln was depicted as an ignorant backwoodsman from the frontier, Kenedy was rich and Catholic, King was black, yet their legacy came through.  Never judge a book by the cover or what is said on the cover, ya gotta read it to get the full benefit.

[hiker67]

There will be thousands of times in life where people will say things I don't like or disagree with, but I will defend free speech every time.  Dropping a sitting president from the historical tradition of Honorary President because of what he/she might say is tantamount to censorship. 

 

Abraham Lincoln...

 

It is not censorship.  BSA is not obligated to give anyone a platform on its donors' dime.  There is no shortage of platforms on which the President can speak; the President's speech is not infringed in any way.

 

You chose some presidents and not others in your post.  Shouldn't BSA have the same choice?

[cyclops]

You know, after I read his speech to the Jamboree I thought that what he said was uncalled for and inappropriate for the occasion. I obviously have an already low opinion of the man. But when I heard his 'slasher' speech yesterday, in which he advocated the commission of crimes of bodily injury by OFFICERS OF THE LAW...he went to unfathomable depths way beyond even my already low expectations. I hope that the BSA can somehow distance itself from this person and keep him away from our youth. Any lesson to be learned by his negative example can be learned other ways without the taint of this profoundly bad example.

[Stosh]

It is not censorship.  BSA is not obligated to give anyone a platform on its donors' dime.  There is no shortage of platforms on which the President can speak; the President's speech is not infringed in any way.

 

You chose some presidents and not others in your post.  Shouldn't BSA have the same choice?

 

I chose the presidents according to historical facts and MLK wasn't a president.

 

The hypocrisy of selecting which Honorary President can speak and which ones can't, isn't a historical fact, it's an infringement on free speech.

 

To drop the position of Honorary President of the BSA is fine with me, but then that has an affect on any future president and what they might say that one might agree with.

 

Over the past 50 years I have been exposed to a variety of different presidents.  Some I agree with some I don't.  One needs to be able to accept free speech for what it is and take it with a grain of salt.  I don't find it necessary to express my opinions on other's free speech when it comes to my wife, family, friends, coworkers, or even people I meet on the street.  It also applies to politicians as well.  

 

Like the weather, it's stormy here today, wait a day or so and the sun will shine.  Move on, there's nothing here to get all that worked up about.  It's been stormy in the past, it will be stormy in the future.  And yes, I enjoy the sunny days more.  I don't need to apologize for the weather or what other people say.  One doesn't get bit if they just leave a sleeping dog lie.

[hiker67]

The hypocrisy of selecting which Honorary President can speak and which ones can't, isn't a historical fact, it's an infringement on free speech.

 

To drop the position of Honorary President of the BSA is fine with me, but then that has an affect on any future president and what they might say that one might agree with.

 

 

There is no ethical requirement to have an honorary president in the first place.  Not having an honorary president does not stop US presidents from being invited to speak in the future.

 

There is no reason why the choice of honorary president must be limited to US presidents.  BSA could change its policy so that it could choose anyone, based on achievement.  It could be a current or past US president, a Nobel laureate, a governor, Medal of Valor recipient, etc. -- someone whose achievement and conduct reflect Scouting principles.  It would be even more meaningful if it was someone who was in Scouting.

[cyclops]

I agree with hiker67 on this. BSA is, as they argued successfully to SCOTUS, a private club. As such they should be free to select anyone they feel like. That, at least, would make it clear that whomever the speaker was, the speaker would more likely communicate a message that was more in line with Scout Law and Oath. And while I wouldn't limit it to someone who is IN scouting, I would support an attempt to select persons who had been scouts or scouters in the past if not present, but I think there are plenty of others who may not be or have been associated with scouting who also represent the high ideals of the Law and Oath.

Edited July 29, 2017 by cyclops

[EmberMike]

The hypocrisy of selecting which Honorary President can speak and which ones can't, isn't a historical fact, it's an infringement on free speech.

 

That's not infringement of free speech. Not being invited somewhere doesn't violate anyone's rights. The BSA chooses whoever they want to speak at events. It's customary to invite the current President, but it's their right to not invite him or anyone else. 

[Stosh]

Picking and choosing based on what someone might say is censorship.  Especially with a 100+ year standing tradition glaringly obvious as to the rationale behind the choosing.

[cyclops]

Picking and choosing based on what someone might say is censorship.  Especially with a 100+ year standing tradition glaringly obvious as to the rationale behind the choosing.

 

If that's YOUR definition of censorship then BSA has been doing this for, as you say, 100 years by excluding everyone else. Yes, it could be viewed as breaking a tradition. But censorship, according to dictionaries and pretty much anyone but you applies when certain speech is prohibited, as is applied in this forum. The moderators will moderate any expression that crosses what appears to be a fuzzy line of decorum. There are some expressions that simply won't be allowed.

There are certain individuals who, if they prove to be troublesome by insisting on posting that kind of speech, can be suspended or even banned from the forum. THAT is censorship. But just because the Elks Club decides to invite one speaker as opposed to another for their banquet (I'm not an Elk, I have not idea if they have banquets or not) doesn't mean they're censoring all of the other possible speakers (which I suppose includes most everyone else on the planet).

When I am not selected by the 'letters' section of a magazine I am not being censored. I just didn't 'make the cut'. I am still free to proclaim to the world whatever it was I was trying to proclaim. I just won't be doing it in the 'letters'.

Censorship is when China prohibits web access that possibly supports political opposition. It's when the leaders of Myanmar put someone under arrest for speaking in opposition, it's when Russia, on threat of imprisonment, suppresses opposition speech.

But it isn't my local paper's refusal to publish my op-ed article. That is their editorial decision. I am still free to pay to have that article published as an 'ad' or even by printing it myself if I want and to sell it or give it away for free for the public to read.

And it isn't BSA's decision to choose whatever speaker they want: THAT is called freedom of choice...by a private club.

You are confused about what censorship is.

Edited July 30, 2017 by cyclops

[RememberSchiff]

What if the two Eagle Scouts standing behind Trump censored their boss? Just step forward, flank him, and redirect the speech into more appropriate and relevant topics. Like they might do with a drunk uncle giving a speech at a family gathering. Granted they would have to be BRAVE, as they would likely no longer be Cabinet Secretaries.

[Stosh]

Maybe it would bode well if BSA just announced that Jamborees are not a Free Speech Zone.  That way they can stop the speech and escort the President off the podium if he/she says something someone doesn't like.  Oh? that isn't ever going to happen?  Well one cant have it both ways.  Either it's free speech or it's not free speech, there's no middle ground.

[DuctTape]

Censorship, abridging free speech, or creating a chilling effect is not illegal or a constitutional violation unless done by the government. Ironically, the president himself might be in violation of abridging some ppls free speech guarantees when he blocked them on twitter. As president, an agent of the government he may not abridge individual rights by censorsing them, but an organization (even this website) can censor whatever type of speech or individuals if wants.

[qwazse]

... But just because the Elks Club decides to invite one speaker as opposed to another for their banquet (I'm not an Elk, I have not idea if they have banquets or not)

...

They do. As a recent Eagle and troop SPL, I was invited to speak at one.

Actually the original invite was to lead the opening and introduce a guest ... A pro football player. The pro couldn't make it so I was asked (I think the day before) if I could fill in the time. They were very gracious to a guy just cutting his teeth at public speaking. And I learned a lot that evening from conversations with men who shared their various interests and hobbies over cocktails and sodas.

[SSScout]

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and supporting your  government when it deserves it".  = Mark Twain =

Edited July 30, 2017 by SSScout

[cyclops]

Thanks qwazse, I thought they probably did but didn't know for sure.