So now the word Monkey is racist?  Do we have to worry about the "M" word these days.  I wish someone would put out a list of words not allowed to be used.  And the point was about the "N" word, not the "M" word.  Nice try.

The congressman was in the face of someone yelling.  That's spittle, not someone delibertly spitting.  Nice try again.

Jeff wrote:

So now the word Monkey is racist? 

**

Yes.  Except it isn't "now", it's been used as a racial slur for at least decades.

Jeff knows. He just finds it acceptable terminology.

Indeed.

Jodi, I agree with your comment: where is the outrage?

I, too, am offended by some of the hateful signs at the Tea Party protests. Unfortunately, such things are protected free speech at a peaceful assembly.

Do you share my outrage at the nutcases who protest with hateful signs at the military funerals (again, sadly, protected speech)? Do you share my outrage at young thugs who prevented Ann Coulter from speaking in Ottawa? Do you share my outrage at the nasty, hateful signs displayed at anti-war protests turn the Bush era? Do you share my outrage at violent protests during the G-20 Summit?

There is much to be outraged about.

Not to answer for Jodi, but the incident with Ann Coulter in Canada reminded me of this quote from The American President: "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours".

I disagree with much that Coulter has to say, but she must be permitted to say it.

And then people who disagree with her position must be given the opportunity to speak as well.  And if her statements are proven incorrect, she should have to explain her statements, or retract them, publically, before she is permitted to speak again.

"...those who's message is more important than their spin ..."

Nicely put.  She's hardly a King, or Mandela, or Malcolm X, or anyone else who has tried to speak truth to power and run real risk in so doing.  A bad Canadian audience would have been rude to her face, a good one would have apologized for the protesters.

Since when was Coulter "prevented" from speaking in Canada.?The head of the university (At least I think that's who it was), wrote a letter welcoming her to campus (where she had been invited by a conservative students group) but recommended that she acquaint herself with Canadian laws about hate speech, as they are less accomodating than the first amendment and based on previous talks she'd held in the US he thought she might risk prosecution.

She chose to interpret that as a threat, when he was simply suggesting she learn about the Canadian law as it pertained to her field.

Laws regarding speech can be a mine field. Without drawing comparisons beyond the legal issue, David Irving learned a harsh lesson about the dangers of exercising free speech in countries where concern for what in that country is classified as unacceptable hate speech (or slander, lies etc.) outweighs free speech.

For senior members of an academic institution to allow visiting speakers with controversial views without also making them aware of local laws that might complicate matters, would be irresponsible.

Not a threat, just common courtesy and due diligence.