Freedom of Speech vs. Political Correctness

[daws101]

Has there ever been a time when there was no consequence to what anyone said? Do you think it would be better if there was never any consequence to a persons words?

"Ever" and "never" in the same post.

This is how you folks handle this. You drag it down to the absurd in an effort to deflect.

You choose to issue consequences.
.

Because the subject is absurd. There are always consequences to anything that is said. You whine about political correctness when what you really want is to deny free speech to people who disagree with your dumb remarks. Say what you want, but you have to expect what ever consequences.arise from what you say.

Why should there be "consequences", including and up to losing your job just for saying you think marriage should be between a man and a woman? Why should there be "consequences" just because you think illegal immigrants should be deported? Why should there be "consequences" because you think random college hookups between drunk people is not automatically rape if the woman decides later she doesn't like what happened?

There are always consequences to anything that is said. asking why is as dumb as asking why the sun comes up in the East. It just is. Live with it.

Yes..But you people on the political left demand that only you get to decide which is acceptable and which is not...

false since conservatives claim to up hold traditional values that dubious honor goes to them.

 

[Mac1958]

"Ever" and "never" in the same post.

This is how you folks handle this. You drag it down to the absurd in an effort to deflect.

You choose to issue consequences.
.

Because the subject is absurd. There are always consequences to anything that is said. You whine about political correctness when what you really want is to deny free speech to people who disagree with your dumb remarks. Say what you want, but you have to expect what ever consequences.arise from what you say.

Why should there be "consequences", including and up to losing your job just for saying you think marriage should be between a man and a woman? Why should there be "consequences" just because you think illegal immigrants should be deported? Why should there be "consequences" because you think random college hookups between drunk people is not automatically rape if the woman decides later she doesn't like what happened?

There are always consequences to anything that is said. asking why is as dumb as asking why the sun comes up in the East. It just is. Live with it.

Screw that. the problem is people have become hypersensitive, and just cant stand that other can have opposing views than they do. The proper response to speech you don't like is 1) disagreeing with the person 2)disagreeing and arguing your point or 3) disagreeing and telling the person to piss off. The proper response is not trying to ruin them, or trying to silence them, or trying to intimidate them into silence.

It's terrible when government does it, and not much better when other people do it.

Those on the political left are ignoring this important fact

They'll continue to. They don't want to give this tactic up. Too effective, still.
.

 

[Seawytch]

"Ever" and "never" in the same post.

This is how you folks handle this. You drag it down to the absurd in an effort to deflect.

You choose to issue consequences.
.

Because the subject is absurd. There are always consequences to anything that is said. You whine about political correctness when what you really want is to deny free speech to people who disagree with your dumb remarks. Say what you want, but you have to expect what ever consequences.arise from what you say.

Why should there be "consequences", including and up to losing your job just for saying you think marriage should be between a man and a woman? Why should there be "consequences" just because you think illegal immigrants should be deported? Why should there be "consequences" because you think random college hookups between drunk people is not automatically rape if the woman decides later she doesn't like what happened?

So you don't believe in a private businesses right to run it as they see fit?

Rape? Talk about non sequitur...

Only if it's truly a private business.
Any business that serves the public is not private.

Seawytch is trying to get me into a trap about my concerns over businesses being forced to "bake or die".
This is actually two separate issues, one being government coercion and the other being coercion by the people.

And apparently you're opposed to both...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Political Correctness is not a constitutional issue, it's a cultural issue.

The PC Police aren't robbing you of your right to speak freely. What they have done instead is create a culture of intimidation and "consequences" for anyone who says anything they don't like. Does that work against the spirit of freedom of speech? Yes. But it's not about the Constitution.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" is not on their minds. They want to shut you up, and they'll find a way to do it.
.

I will agree with you Mac (this one time) that "Political correctness" is not a constitutional issue. The government isn't stifling speech so there is no Constitutional issue and that it is a cultural issue, if any.

However, being "Politically correct" is an exercise of their 1st amendment rights as well. However, people want to silence their speech as well. So, it's not like your side is benevolent in all of this.

Your frustration is the power that these "PC/SJW" actually have. Is it formal powers? Nope. But power is just the ability to coerce someone to do something that they would not normally do. Let's use an example of purchasing/economic power.

If people boycott Kohl's because of their relationship of Trump, Kohl's loses money and customers. These people are using their economic power to not shop at Kohl's. No one is forced to shop at Kohl's but people can voice their concerns to Kohl's. The idea is to get Kohl's to not endorse someone that group believes is a bad person.

However, it doesn't always work (Chick Fil-a) for example but if the economic power of boycotting outweighs the economic power of people supporting, companies will end their relationship. Chick Fil-A didn't work because it is in the South mostly and they are in agreement that Gay marriage is horrible.

Well yeah but you have to take it further;

If Person A says "Queers Deserve AIDS" and Person B says "That's horrible" that is a difference of opinion.
I think Mac is saying that is where it should stop.

What you're saying is that Person B is perfectly justified in using her/his 1st Amendment rights to pressure Person A into silence by contacting their employer and by boycotting that business where Person A works.
I think that is what you're saying.

I take it a step further. If I'm the employer, I am of the opinion that I would like to know if my employees are broadcasting views that are contrary to my beliefs. What if I have homosexual employees who Person A supervises? What if I am homosexual myself? What if we sell a clothing line marketed to the LGBT community? By the same token, what if I could care less as long as Person A does their work, comes in on time and is square with everyone they encounter during business. If I have a customer who is homosexual or refers to their same-sex friend as a "partner", I can mention to Person A "Do you feel comfortable with serving that person?"

The more information that is in the equation, the better.

The employee to employer to business partner issue is different.
using your scenario as our example.....I am an employer that has shall we say a vested interest in the local community. And lets say I have an employee that has views opposite of mine. That person keeps their views to themselves. Then I have another employee that has the same views as the former, expresses his views publicly....One day a person from the community, part of my customer base, shows me evidence of the employees views which in this case would be derogatory or offensive( there I used it) , My first reaction would be to have a chat with that employee. I would let that person know that while his or views are their own and that is fine. However, when they broadcast those views to the point where it hurts my business, I will be forced to make a decision as to which is more important. My business, or my continued employer relationship with that employee.
In short, Yes the worker HAS the right of free speech. That right is not absolute.
Now, you may want to know the viewpoint of each party in this scenario....It's irrelevant. This is merely an illustration.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Political correctness is an attack on free speech and its intentional. Just part of the lefts wider assault on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

This and other fallicies on sale now!

Another left wing moon bat true believer. There is no rational thought in you....
You do not have time for the facts. All that matters is what you believe.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"Ever" and "never" in the same post.

This is how you folks handle this. You drag it down to the absurd in an effort to deflect.

You choose to issue consequences.
.

Because the subject is absurd. There are always consequences to anything that is said. You whine about political correctness when what you really want is to deny free speech to people who disagree with your dumb remarks. Say what you want, but you have to expect what ever consequences.arise from what you say.

Why should there be "consequences", including and up to losing your job just for saying you think marriage should be between a man and a woman? Why should there be "consequences" just because you think illegal immigrants should be deported? Why should there be "consequences" because you think random college hookups between drunk people is not automatically rape if the woman decides later she doesn't like what happened?

There are always consequences to anything that is said. asking why is as dumb as asking why the sun comes up in the East. It just is. Live with it.

Screw that. the problem is people have become hypersensitive, and just cant stand that other can have opposing views than they do. The proper response to speech you don't like is 1) disagreeing with the person 2)disagreeing and arguing your point or 3) disagreeing and telling the person to piss off. The proper response is not trying to ruin them, or trying to silence them, or trying to intimidate them into silence.

It's terrible when government does it, and not much better when other people do it.

Glad to hear you feel that way. Does that mean you will stop pushing for the government to restrict gay marriage, or abortions, or legalized pot, or etc, etc., etc. ? To do otherwise would make you a hypocrite,....right?

None of which has anything to do with speech..
You are suggesting legislature make no laws. You are suggesting the people have no say in how society governs itself.
BTW, genius...The abortion thing was settled 4 decades ago. Its legal. Gay marriage is legal and recognized.....Pot? under federal law still illegal. So what? If you be a burner, move to one of the states that like pot heads.
I can't stand the shit. I don't like pot heads I don't like being around them.
should pot be illegal?.....I don't think so. I think any state with a legislature with half a brain would legalize it and then tax the shit out of it.

 

[Timmy]

I'll give you an example of political correctness that's an assault on free speech. Every year there's a Republican congressman who floats a bill to make flagburning a crime. I like how they act like political correct this is only for liberals.

 

[JFK_USA]

Well, that's an odd view.
If we have the right to free speech then are punished by some social code or another person's definition of what is not free speech, then there is no free speech.
I am well aware that the right to free speech is not absolute. However when those with a political agenda use the threat of sanctions either via employer action or force of government to quash the rights of those with which they do not agree or more accurately, those that refuse to agree with them, we have no free speech.

You have the right to say anything.

Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population that has decided to take it upon itself to intimidate you from saying something they don't like, using anything from personal to professional destruction.

That doesn't mean your right has been taken away. It simply means that they have weaponized their own freedom of speech.
.

Not sure what your point is. Do you think speech should have consequences or not? If you don't like being told that you are offensive, then quit being offensive. Problem solved.

Ah, and you're in charge of determining what is "offensive".

And you'll try to issue consequences if I don't agree with your definition.

That's my point. Right there.
.

Yes. I am in charge of what is offensive.....for me. Just as you are in charge of that decision for you.

And I wouldn't think of issuing consequences if you said something I didn't like.

Too bad that courtesy won't be returned.
.

If someone said all catholics are pedophiles, I bet catholics would be offended. The problem is they are the majority so it's easy to denounce certain speech. However, minorities (simply because they are in the minority) can't denounce certain speech because they don't have that informal power. So do some people join to give power to their cause? Yes. Is that the most horrible thing in the world? No.

 

[Mac1958]

I'll give you an example of political correctness that's an assault on free speech. Every year there's a Republican congressman who floats a bill to make flagburning a crime. I like how they act like political correct this is only for liberals.

That's a great example of right wing PC.

Far more rare, but it exists.
.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Want to see PC?

Someone get that retarded drooler off the fucking dog...

 

[Syriusly]

I believe that freedom of speech is our most important Constitutional right and that political correctness is its greatest adversary. The question is, who among our Presidential candidates will be its greatest defender?

"

Freedom of speech means that the government cannot restrict what you say.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism- which is what those who talk about 'political correctness' want.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I heard a radio show host wrestle with the nasty PC issue surrounding PA laws. Karen Hunter agrees with Mac and many other passive aggressive bigots when she says that gay people shouldn't sue businesses who won't serve them. They can simply give someone else their business.

 

[Mac1958]

"Ever" and "never" in the same post.

This is how you folks handle this. You drag it down to the absurd in an effort to deflect.

You choose to issue consequences.
.

Because the subject is absurd. There are always consequences to anything that is said. You whine about political correctness when what you really want is to deny free speech to people who disagree with your dumb remarks. Say what you want, but you have to expect what ever consequences.arise from what you say.

Why should there be "consequences", including and up to losing your job just for saying you think marriage should be between a man and a woman? Why should there be "consequences" just because you think illegal immigrants should be deported? Why should there be "consequences" because you think random college hookups between drunk people is not automatically rape if the woman decides later she doesn't like what happened?

There are always consequences to anything that is said. asking why is as dumb as asking why the sun comes up in the East. It just is. Live with it.

Screw that. the problem is people have become hypersensitive, and just cant stand that other can have opposing views than they do. The proper response to speech you don't like is 1) disagreeing with the person 2)disagreeing and arguing your point or 3) disagreeing and telling the person to piss off. The proper response is not trying to ruin them, or trying to silence them, or trying to intimidate them into silence.

It's terrible when government does it, and not much better when other people do it.

Those on the political left are ignoring this important fact

Another thing they do is this: If you defend the right of a bigot to say something bigoted, then you must agree with that bigot.

Now, I honestly don't know if they actually believe that, or if it's just another dishonest tactic, I can never tell with them.

Who knows. But if they're being serious, that's some pretty simplistic thinking right there.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Because the subject is absurd. There are always consequences to anything that is said. You whine about political correctness when what you really want is to deny free speech to people who disagree with your dumb remarks. Say what you want, but you have to expect what ever consequences.arise from what you say.

Why should there be "consequences", including and up to losing your job just for saying you think marriage should be between a man and a woman? Why should there be "consequences" just because you think illegal immigrants should be deported? Why should there be "consequences" because you think random college hookups between drunk people is not automatically rape if the woman decides later she doesn't like what happened?

There are always consequences to anything that is said. asking why is as dumb as asking why the sun comes up in the East. It just is. Live with it.

Screw that. the problem is people have become hypersensitive, and just cant stand that other can have opposing views than they do. The proper response to speech you don't like is 1) disagreeing with the person 2)disagreeing and arguing your point or 3) disagreeing and telling the person to piss off. The proper response is not trying to ruin them, or trying to silence them, or trying to intimidate them into silence.

It's terrible when government does it, and not much better when other people do it.

Those on the political left are ignoring this important fact

Another thing they do is this: If you defend the right of a bigot to say something bigoted, then you must agree with that bigot.

Now, I honestly don't know if they actually believe that, or if it's just another dishonest tactic, I can never tell with them.

Who knows. But if they're being serious, that's some pretty simplistic thinking right there.
.

I defend the right of bigots to say bigoted things. Absolutely. No reservations. And I don't agree with them at all.

You must be thinking of some other "they". How odd.

 

[Ravi]

Mack is The Most Ironic Poster Evah.

 

[BULLDOG]

Political Correctness is not a constitutional issue, it's a cultural issue.

The PC Police aren't robbing you of your right to speak freely. What they have done instead is create a culture of intimidation and "consequences" for anyone who says anything they don't like. Does that work against the spirit of freedom of speech? Yes. But it's not about the Constitution.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" is not on their minds. They want to shut you up, and they'll find a way to do it.
.

Has there ever been a time when there was no consequence to what anyone said? Do you think it would be better if there was never any consequence to a persons words?

"Ever" and "never" in the same post.

This is how you folks handle this. You drag it down to the absurd in an effort to deflect.

You choose to issue consequences.
.

Because the subject is absurd. There are always consequences to anything that is said. You whine about political correctness when what you really want is to deny free speech to people who disagree with your dumb remarks. Say what you want, but you have to expect what ever consequences.arise from what you say.

Nope..You have it backward.
And because we are addressing a constitutionally protected right.....I have a question.....Who the hell are you to decide which speech is to be free and which is not?
Who the hell are you to decide who gets to suffer consequences and who gets a pass?
If you think this is about free speech you are mistaken. This boils down to WHO is speaking....
For example, it is taboo for a non black to criticize a black person in a racist manner. But according to you people it is perfectly fine for black people to make racist statements against non blacks.
There is the problem. You people believe you get to be the sole arbiter of who gets to say what and who gets to be punished.

Wow. You're really not getting it, are you? Anybody is free to say what they want, but I, like anybody else, get to decide how I respond. If you insult more people, more people will respond. I'm sorry if you are upset because the country no longer accepts your racism as much as it once did, but that's something for you to deal with. Not my problem.

 

[BULLDOG]

Has there ever been a time when there was no consequence to what anyone said? Do you think it would be better if there was never any consequence to a persons words?

"Ever" and "never" in the same post.

This is how you folks handle this. You drag it down to the absurd in an effort to deflect.

You choose to issue consequences.
.

Because the subject is absurd. There are always consequences to anything that is said. You whine about political correctness when what you really want is to deny free speech to people who disagree with your dumb remarks. Say what you want, but you have to expect what ever consequences.arise from what you say.

Why should there be "consequences", including and up to losing your job just for saying you think marriage should be between a man and a woman? Why should there be "consequences" just because you think illegal immigrants should be deported? Why should there be "consequences" because you think random college hookups between drunk people is not automatically rape if the woman decides later she doesn't like what happened?

There are always consequences to anything that is said. asking why is as dumb as asking why the sun comes up in the East. It just is. Live with it.

Yes..But you people on the political left demand that only you get to decide which is acceptable and which is not...

We decide for ourselves, and respond as our freedom of speech allows.. You can decide for yourself.

 

[bripat9643]

PC is freedom of speech. You people are a hoot.

"he said ******!"
"lets socially assassinate him and make him bankrupt!"

Who said that? Oh, no one. You are just so afraid of saying something un-PC you need to make a strawman to protect you.

Saying something un-PC can destroy your career, as Mike Ditka recently learned.

 

[daws101]

Political correctness is an attack on free speech and its intentional. Just part of the lefts wider assault on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

This and other fallicies on sale now!

Another left wing moon bat true believer. There is no rational thought in you....
You do not have time for the facts. All that matters is what you believe.

Actually, that's your malfunction.
With a few exceptions free speech is still free .
The bill of rights and the constitution don't gard against the consequences of free speech.
They don't give you the right not to be offended or yammer any bullshit you wish .
They only guarantee your right to speak.

 

[bripat9643]

Political correctness is an attack on free speech and its intentional. Just part of the lefts wider assault on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

This and other fallicies on sale now!

Another left wing moon bat true believer. There is no rational thought in you....
You do not have time for the facts. All that matters is what you believe.

Actually, that's your malfunction.
With a few exceptions free speech is still free .
The bill of rights and the constitution don't gard against the consequences of free speech.
They don't give you the right not to be offended or yammer any bullshit you wish .
They only guarantee your right to speak.

Public universities have a different opinion.