fayfreethinkers.com

To Rumor, Moses (Gary Bowman) has sued several universities for limiting his free speech. Though, was it in good cause to limit it? Gary Bowman is a self-proclaimed prophet of god he spreads messages of condescension and insult towards those who have not accepted "the way". To my understanding there have been several laws and rulings limiting free speech in the manor of A) Harassment and B) Hate Speech.

Harass
1. To irritate or torment persistently.
2. To wear out; exhaust.
3. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.

Hate Speech
Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.

Would it really be that much of a bastardization of the constitution to tell this guy that he can't come to the UofA in that manor? I wouldn't be staunchly opposed to him if he just sat in a small circle with those who CHOOSE to hear what he has to say, or for him to hand out leaflets or a printed newsletter. It's not that he doesn't deserve it(okay, he really doesn't deserve it), it is the fact that he crosses the boundary to go as far to degrade particular groups of people, i.e. Catholics, muslims, homosexuals, etc. To my understanding, this is called hate speech and harassment.

Why is this so difficult for Arkansas and Oklahoma courts to see? What would be some constructive ways to effective deal with him? Ignoring him is out of the question, he is to vocal and to controversial just to be ignored. Would it be illegal to use an air-horn during his sermons?

rubbar wrote: Would it be illegal to use an air-horn during his sermons?

DAR
Probably. He uses a loud whistle but he has a permit to be there and do his little show.

I don't know. I'm torn. He is so effective at making Christians look foolish. He accomplishes nothing for his supposed goal. It doesn't bother me because I don't have to be near it. Maybe the students are getting an interesting lesson. Better to err on the side of free speech until it becomes truly harassment. When does that line get crossed? That will have to be subjectively decided by someone at the University.

Do take pleasure in realizing that he is completely 100% ineffective at converting anyone to anything (other than making atheists and freethinkers look better). There is only one person in the Gary Bowman crazy church.

I was talking to someone about setting up another exchange between us freethinkers (at least Doug and I, maybe more) and him. Maybe it will happen.

D.

Darrel wrote:Better to err on the side of free speech until it becomes truly harassment. When does that line get crossed? That will have to be subjectively decided by someone at the University.

I was never on the receiving end of any of this nutjob's taunts, but I was there when it was done a few times, and I think that he does sometimes cross the line. In one instance I recall, he called out a girl just walking by (minding her own business) and called her a whore because she was smoking a cigarette.

He called the manager of one of the campus coffee houses a drug pusher (since caffeine is a drug). The manager is great. He turned to his supervisor and asked if he could put that on his resume!

As to Moses, I'd hand out whistles to everybody (had I the money) and tell them to blow loudly at anything obnoxious - or even just something they don't believe - just like he does.

I have had to listen to Moses my entire U of A career. I loathe the man and his comments make me furious. But we should not, cannot limit his speech. Free speech is just that, and we have to defend it. He comes close sometimes to verbal abuse of individuals, but it is obvious that he knows he has to walk that line.

The University tried to ban him before and THAT is an unbelievably embarrassing fact. Like I keep pointing out, I am a radical "old" left lefty. The fact that the froofy "new" left is soo apt to limit free speech, no matter how atrocious it is, is awful. It is borderline fascist.
Let the moron sound like a moron. If we don't like it, debate him. Counter with speech of our own. Point out what an intolerant bastard he is. But don't try to shut him up.

Tred

Well now, he hardly has to walk a close line. I'm not saying he can't preach, just he can't preach at that particular place in that particular manner. He could lessen the volume, clean up his act, or find one of the many avenues by which all dumbasses exercise their right to free speech(i.e. leaflets, internet) Or he could just use a flippin' church.

He can express his ideas if he likes, but when he resorts to vulgar, insulting, loud comments is where we should draw the line. Sure there are vulgar and insulting ideas expressed all around us, but I can CHOOSE not to access/hear/see them. When I'm walking into the union for lunch I don't really have a choice, now do I?

I don't understand why froofy lefties continue to think they have a right to not be bothered by ideas. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED! What the hell?
Free speech. FREE SPEECH! Always and forever. It's bad enough we have to constantly fight right wing fascists on this...that is just always a given. What is new is having to fight froofy 'new' left fascists too. Unless he specifically attacks an individual minding his or her own business in a specific and mean mannor, its speech, not harrassment. And after years of having to listen to Moses' bullshit, I have never seen him do that.
"Hate" speech legislation is also fascist and I'll fight it with my dying breath. I want idiots and racists and mean spirited people up front where they can be identified...and then countered. I don't believe in sweeping it under the rug. If you don't like Moses or his ideas, and none of us do, then debate him. Yell at him. Engage him. Do something other than trying to shut him up. Gather some courage and try something other than fascism.

Tony said:

Unless he specifically attacks an individual minding his or her own business in a specific and mean mannor, its speech, not harrassment.

I think yelling at a woman and calling her a whore because she is merely walking by and smoking a cigarette qualifies under Tony's definition as harassment. If Moses wants to stand there an pontificate all day long about his religious beliefs, that's free speech no matter how crazy he is. But his behavior is unacceptable in civilized society. If I stood outside on the street corner screaming horrible insults at people walking by, I'd probably be arrested.

Tony wrote:I don't understand why froofy lefties continue to think they have a right to not be bothered by ideas. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED! What the hell?
Free speech. FREE SPEECH! Always and forever. It's bad enough we have to constantly fight right wing fascists on this...that is just always a given. What is new is having to fight froofy 'new' left fascists too. Unless he specifically attacks an individual minding his or her own business in a specific and mean mannor, its speech, not harrassment. And after years of having to listen to Moses' bullshit, I have never seen him do that.
"Hate" speech legislation is also fascist and I'll fight it with my dying breath. I want idiots and racists and mean spirited people up front where they can be identified...and then countered. I don't believe in sweeping it under the rug. If you don't like Moses or his ideas, and none of us do, then debate him. Yell at him. Engage him. Do something other than trying to shut him up. Gather some courage and try something other than fascism.

Assuming makes an ass out of. . . Well just you.

As if yelling at him gets you anywhere. The man a 1/4-1/3 of the time is just down right insulting. Of course he's entitled to his own dumbass opinion, nor am I saying he can't speak it. I'm saying the bastard should get to yell it and cause a ruckus on the campus.

If you've ever truly observed him you'd realise there is no debate. He digresses, insults, refuses, and he can't seem to make a logical connection between A and B for the life of him. Hell, he doesn't even keep his oral contracts when he makes his $400 offer. Free speech, he can express his ideas just as easily through leaflets, newsletters, his own church, or small gatherings that don't involve innocent bystanders.

Lets also not neglect the fact that he a supporter to homosexual persecution--which is clearly a larger crime than wanting him to STFU.

Betsy wrote:

I think yelling at a woman and calling her a whore because she is merely walking by and smoking a cigarette qualifies under Tony's definition as harassment.

Yeah, Sav said he saw this. I have never seen him do that to someone just passing by. I have always heard him speak of other folks and very broadly. But if he does do THAT, then yes it might be construed as verbal assault, and should not be tolerated. But again, I've seen Moses a lot and never seen him do that.

rubbar1 wrote:

If you've ever truly observed him you'd realise there is no debate. He digresses, insults, refuses, and he can't seem to make a logical connection between A and B for the life of him. Hell, he doesn't even keep his oral contracts when he makes his $400 offer. Free speech, he can express his ideas just as easily through leaflets, newsletters, his own church, or small gatherings that don't involve innocent bystanders.

Lets also not neglect the fact that he a supporter to homosexual persecution--which is clearly a larger crime than wanting him to STFU.

Like I said, I've never seen him target anyone specifically who was not engaged in refuting him. Never a mere passerby.

It does not matter if he cannot make a rational argument, it doesn't matter how dumb or wrong or stupid he is. It's free speech. It should not be shut off. Nor should it be confined to specific places where speech is allowed i.e. leaflets, newsletters, church, small gatherings etc. In a public setting, speech cannot and should not be abridged. None of it. Like I said, you DO NOT have a right to not be offended. We should welcome all speech, no matter how absurd or stupid or mean.

Hell, at least he does something. Most Americans spend their lives sitting around watching mindless inanities on tv without ever a provocative or interesting thought entering their little heads and never professing or voicing anything they might believe in. In that regard I think Moses is actually superior to most folks. I think he might just be clinically insane, but at least he's DOING something.

NO limits on fee speech! Nada! Zero!

Hopefully Doug and Darrel are serious about trying to debate him. Have you guys tried that before? A great idea. Isn't that better than shutting someone up because we don't like what they say?

Tony wrote:Like I said, you DO NOT have a right to not be offended.

But we do have the right not to be harassed and/or slandered. Where the line is drawn is what is at issue.

Tony wrote: Hopefully Doug and Darrel are serious about trying to debate him. Have you guys tried that before? A great idea. Isn't that better than shutting someone up because we don't like what they say?

DOUG
I've already debated him. We debated at Darrel's house and then at the Fayetteville Public Library. The guy was insane. I became convinced that he is mentally ill. He changed what he wanted to be called at least three times (from "Moses" to "Gary" and back again, or the other way 'round), he started out a rebuttal period stating what he was going to show, and then he would forget what it was, or deny he ever said he would show that, etc. etc.

The guy has more than one screw loose.

.

Doug: The guy has more than one screw loose.

Don't most of the religulous ones? Talking snakes, talking plants, virgin births, schizophrenic god images, and that book Christians must believe...how horrible and obscene is that!
Murder, incest, mass pillaging, adultery, animal sacrifice, mass abortions-using swords, and prescription killing...all because a invisible protector loves you and created the evil for
which you are judged guilty when you land on the Earth plane.

Tonight, Bill Mahr asked "why doesn't God just destroy the Devil?" Boy, Mahr wants to take away all the fun priests and preachers have plus all the profit that fable of Christ has bestowed.


Sheeesh. If they ban books then put that Bible on the top of the list for atrocities.
Not fit for children at any age!

So is it any wonder that someone with a loose screw and a squeaky wheel goes batshit crazy after indulging themselves in it?

You have to ask is this the purpose of our First Amendment? I suppose so with the government prohibited from restricting the free expression of religion or speech.
I think Jefferson and Madison should have thought that one through a bit more.
.

I actually talked to him about this debate last week, Doug. He is ABSOLUTELY convinced he won the debate because you just couldnt get the fact that your soul is connected to your fathers or some BS along those lines.

I heard there is a DVD of said debate...could be interesting. Moses said he would also like a copy...and he did promise to show up at a freethinker meeting some time, but I doubt he will come through on this.

ChristianLoeschel wrote:I actually talked to him about this debate last week, Doug. He is ABSOLUTELY convinced he won the debate because you just couldnt get the fact that your soul is connected to your fathers or some BS along those lines.

DAR
When Moses tried to make that point it was the funniest part of the debate. Saying Moses is "absolutely convinced" of something doesn't really mean much does it? LOL.

I heard there is a DVD of said debate...could be interesting. Moses said he would also like a copy...and he did promise to show up at a freethinker meeting some time, but I doubt he will come through on this.

DAR
I have copies of it and can make more. Someone also slipped me a DVD of some of his campus rants, to play at a meeting. I haven't looked at it yet. Might be good.

Someone is trying to arrange a debate/exchange between us freethinkers and Moses. We'll see how it goes. I was against the first debate. Moses will do anything for attention and promotion and I had to give him any more of that. It actually turned out better than I thought and maybe even a little useful.

D.

Doug wrote:

I've already debated him. We debated at Darrel's house and then at the Fayetteville Public Library. The guy was insane. I became convinced that he is mentally ill.

Ahh. I didn't know you guys had debated him. I have often wondered whether or not he's just plain nuts, or a brilliant anti-Christain himself who through his antics will probably do more damage to the credibility of Xianity than all of us Freethinkers together could.

But even if he's nuts, we should not shut him up. We should just continue to point out how nuts he is, or let him do it himself. Silencing him is wrong, wrong, wrong I think.

Tony wrote:Doug wrote: But even if he's nuts, we should not shut him up. We should just continue to point out how nuts he is, or let him do it himself. Silencing him is wrong, wrong, wrong I think.

Kicking him off campus? Yeah sure, that'd be wrong. Telling him he can't express the dumbass opinion he's entitled to? Yeah, wrong too. Telling him to take the volume from 10 to 5? I don't see the problem.

Almost everyday he singles passerby's out, is it always verbal abuse/assault? Not always but I'd say it hits that mark 50-50 or 60-40 of the time. Over the past couple of days my thoughts towards him have changed a bit--yeah I still think he should get his own church so I don't have to listen to his religious language on campus but am I forcing him to? No, not really--not yet >:)

Though here's an interesting thought--he is clearly a staunch republican with high christian values, ergo it could be reasonably assumed that he supported or still supports abridging the rights of Habeas Corpus, Privacy, etc which would run contrary to this idea of "personal liberty".

So here is a question in the form of a quote for us to quarrel over--"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."(Franklin) Seems more like a philosophical thought to shame those who do.

Guest wrote:...he is clearly a staunch republican with high christian values, ergo it could be reasonably assumed that he supported or still supports abridging the rights of Habeas Corpus, Privacy, etc which would run contrary to this idea of "personal liberty".

DAR
He's over on that r-wing side somewhere but I suspect his political views are as radical and out to lunch as his religious views. He's quite good at co-opting what he likes, what fits his narrow world view, and tossing the rest.

D.

Darrel wrote: DAR
I suspect his political views are as radical and out to lunch as his religious views.

D.

His religious views are his political views 0.o