Freedom of Speech vs. Political Correctness

[Mac1958]

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.
.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Its not a straw man. Shit likes that happens. Just because you dont leave your couch, doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
LMAO yea, I am a so PC its CRAZY man!

The only time you leave your basement is to buy more beer.

I don't drink much
Guess that makes it even worse LOL

 

[Mac1958]

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.
.

Aren't you citing a distinction without a difference? "Intimidation" can be as potent a weapon against free speech as a loaded gun is during a robbery. Do you think that "protesters" who disrupt or prevent those with opposing views from speaking is merely a cultural issue? That argument itself is a demonstration of how PC is robbing us of our First Amendment rights.

Protesters who shout you down aren't taking away your rights. You can keep talking, even if no one can hear you.

PC Police who get you fired for "offending" them aren't taking away your rights. You can say whatever you want and suffer the consequences.

That's the difference. You can say anything you want. Your rights are secure. It's what they then do to you that matters. Yes, that's clearly against the spirit of Freedom of Speech, agreed. But what they are doing is not unconstitutional.
.

True, but to a point. It does effect legislation. Also unnecessary actions(or lack thereof) by the local, state and federal agencies as well.

Yeah, I can see that. It starts within the culture and then spreads to legislation.
.

 

[Mac1958]

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.
.

Aren't you citing a distinction without a difference? "Intimidation" can be as potent a weapon against free speech as a loaded gun is during a robbery. Do you think that "protesters" who disrupt or prevent those with opposing views from speaking is merely a cultural issue? That argument itself is a demonstration of how PC is robbing us of our First Amendment rights.

Protesters who shout you down aren't taking away your rights. You can keep talking, even if no one can hear you.

PC Police who get you fired for "offending" them aren't taking away your rights. You can say whatever you want and suffer the consequences.

That's the difference. You can say anything you want. Your rights are secure. It's what they then do to you that matters. Yes, that's clearly against the spirit of Freedom of Speech, agreed. But what they are doing is not unconstitutional.

You wouldn't do that to them. I wouldn't do that to them. They have no such standards.
.

Do you consider robbery at gunpoint a deprivation of the victim's rights?

Yes. Make a point.
.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Its not a straw man. Shit likes that happens. Just because you dont leave your couch, doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
LMAO yea, I am a so PC its CRAZY man!

FUCK you you lazy ****** ********* *******E!

^Nothing will happen to me.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Its not a straw man. Shit likes that happens. Just because you dont leave your couch, doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
LMAO yea, I am a so PC its CRAZY man!

FUCK you you lazy ****** ********* *******E!

^Nothing will happen to me.

You are like a fuckin kid

 

[Ravi]

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.
.

"you folks" is what is ironic about Mack. He tries to intimidate people, doing EXACTLY what he claims others are doing to him.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Its not a straw man. Shit likes that happens. Just because you dont leave your couch, doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
LMAO yea, I am a so PC its CRAZY man!

FUCK you you lazy ****** ********* *******E!

^Nothing will happen to me.

You are like a fuckin kid

How unPC of you.

 

[TNHarley]

"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.

Its not a straw man. Shit likes that happens. Just because you dont leave your couch, doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
LMAO yea, I am a so PC its CRAZY man!

FUCK you you lazy ****** ********* *******E!

^Nothing will happen to me.

You are like a fuckin kid

How unPC of you.

Looks like I was right and you were wrong. AGAIN. Dumbfuck.

 

[daws101]

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.

Its not a straw man. Shit likes that happens. Just because you dont leave your couch, doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
LMAO yea, I am a so PC its CRAZY man!

The only time you leave your basement is to buy more beer.

I don't drink much
Guess that makes it even worse LOL

In your mental state you shouldn't mix medication and alcohol.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Its not a straw man. Shit likes that happens. Just because you dont leave your couch, doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
LMAO yea, I am a so PC its CRAZY man!

FUCK you you lazy ****** ********* *******E!

^Nothing will happen to me.

You are like a fuckin kid

How unPC of you.

Looks like I was right and you were wrong. AGAIN. Dumbfuck.

Are you feeling intimidated?

 

[TNHarley]

Its not a straw man. Shit likes that happens. Just because you dont leave your couch, doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
LMAO yea, I am a so PC its CRAZY man!

FUCK you you lazy ****** ********* *******E!

^Nothing will happen to me.

You are like a fuckin kid

How unPC of you.

Looks like I was right and you were wrong. AGAIN. Dumbfuck.

Are you feeling intimidated?

Children dont intimidate me

 

[jwoodie]

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.
.

Aren't you citing a distinction without a difference? "Intimidation" can be as potent a weapon against free speech as a loaded gun is during a robbery. Do you think that "protesters" who disrupt or prevent those with opposing views from speaking is merely a cultural issue? That argument itself is a demonstration of how PC is robbing us of our First Amendment rights.

Protesters who shout you down aren't taking away your rights. You can keep talking, even if no one can hear you.

PC Police who get you fired for "offending" them aren't taking away your rights. You can say whatever you want and suffer the consequences.

That's the difference. You can say anything you want. Your rights are secure. It's what they then do to you that matters. Yes, that's clearly against the spirit of Freedom of Speech, agreed. But what they are doing is not unconstitutional.

You wouldn't do that to them. I wouldn't do that to them. They have no such standards.
.

Do you consider robbery at gunpoint a deprivation of the victim's rights?

Yes. Make a point.
.

"PC Police who get you fired for "offending" them aren't taking away your rights. You can say whatever you want and suffer the consequences."

Let's change your argument to:

The robber who shoots you isn't taking away your rights. You can refuse to give him your wallet and suffer the consequences?

What is the difference between the PC Police and the robber taking away your rights?

 

[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.

 

[g5000]

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?

The answer, obviously, is Donald Trump. You may not like his speech, but he is the embodiment of exercising that right. Ted Cruz makes good legal arguments, and the rest of the GOP candidates espouse conservative Constitutional principles, but Trump is the only one who puts his money where his mouth is.

Of course this "offends" those who want to control your speech, your thoughts and your money. Isn't it time we finally tell these people to "fuck off?"

Trump as the embodiment of the exercising of free speech. Yeah. Just like David Duke is also the embodiment of the exercise of free speech.

That doesn't make either one of them the best choice for office.

 

[Mac1958]

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.
.

Aren't you citing a distinction without a difference? "Intimidation" can be as potent a weapon against free speech as a loaded gun is during a robbery. Do you think that "protesters" who disrupt or prevent those with opposing views from speaking is merely a cultural issue? That argument itself is a demonstration of how PC is robbing us of our First Amendment rights.

Protesters who shout you down aren't taking away your rights. You can keep talking, even if no one can hear you.

PC Police who get you fired for "offending" them aren't taking away your rights. You can say whatever you want and suffer the consequences.

That's the difference. You can say anything you want. Your rights are secure. It's what they then do to you that matters. Yes, that's clearly against the spirit of Freedom of Speech, agreed. But what they are doing is not unconstitutional.

You wouldn't do that to them. I wouldn't do that to them. They have no such standards.
.

Do you consider robbery at gunpoint a deprivation of the victim's rights?

Yes. Make a point.
.

"PC Police who get you fired for "offending" them aren't taking away your rights. You can say whatever you want and suffer the consequences."

Let's change your argument to:

The robber who shoots you isn't taking away your rights. You can refuse to give him your wallet and suffer the consequences?

What is the difference between the PC Police and the robber taking away your rights?

Okay, explain how they're taking away your rights to Freedom of Speech by shouting you down at a rally or getting you fired.
.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

You choose to issue the consequences. Your choice. You don't have to.

I get it. "Too bad". I know.
.

 

[martybegan]

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.
.

When they do it at Public Universities it is indeed a constitutional issue when they use the administrations of said universities to do their dirty work.

In other areas, they have found an end run around government doing their dirty work, and let social media be the hammer.

 

[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.
.

Aren't you citing a distinction without a difference? "Intimidation" can be as potent a weapon against free speech as a loaded gun is during a robbery. Do you think that "protesters" who disrupt or prevent those with opposing views from speaking is merely a cultural issue? That argument itself is a demonstration of how PC is robbing us of our First Amendment rights.

Protesters who shout you down aren't taking away your rights. You can keep talking, even if no one can hear you.

PC Police who get you fired for "offending" them aren't taking away your rights. You can say whatever you want and suffer the consequences.

That's the difference. You can say anything you want. Your rights are secure. It's what they then do to you that matters. Yes, that's clearly against the spirit of Freedom of Speech, agreed. But what they are doing is not unconstitutional.

You wouldn't do that to them. I wouldn't do that to them. They have no such standards.
.

Do you consider robbery at gunpoint a deprivation of the victim's rights?

Yes. Make a point.
.

"PC Police who get you fired for "offending" them aren't taking away your rights. You can say whatever you want and suffer the consequences."

Let's change your argument to:

The robber who shoots you isn't taking away your rights. You can refuse to give him your wallet and suffer the consequences?

What is the difference between the PC Police and the robber taking away your rights?

Wait just a sec while I write that one down. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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?