Freedom of Speech vs. Political Correctness

[martybegan]

it's a very simple answer. In NYC the pervading political views skew left. It's there in your team building meetings, its there in your social circles, its even written into the contracts of work you do. Things like sustainability and references to global warming. Everyone is for abortion on demand as a right written in the constitution, everyone thinks AGW is the leading concern of our time, everyone thinks guns are icky, and everyone thinks anyone who thinks otherwise is some mid america rube. Just me saying I vote republican gets me stares, and I'm sure whispers behind my back.

You assume that everyone can separate politics from business and work relations, and that is a naive notion, especially in the hyper politicized environment that progressives have created in the past 30 years.

The issue isn't that other people think i am wrong, I can live with that. The issue is they think I can't have those views without being stupid, evil, or a combination of those.

Everyone??????????????????????????? Seriously, you have a very broad brush. If politics is a problem to discuss then simply don't discuss it. Same with religion, transfats, etc. It has NOTHING to do with PC.

Yes it does when one view is considered the "right" view, and all others are to be dismissed, and the people holding them feel the need to hide their viewpoints. The issue is the stifling of debate in this country and the ability of people who disagree to still work or even respect each other.

You don't care because it's your views that have the backing of the elite in this country, and do go out denying it.

PC is about forcing orthodoxy by either converting people to the "right" viewpoint, or suppressing people with the "wrong" viewpoint so they cannot enter the discussion or affect the outcome.

Oh, bullshit. The "elite" in this country are made up of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. I don't care about it because politics has absolutely NOTHING to do with my job.

Not much of a retort their Ravi, since you didn't address anything I actually pointed out.

All you pointed out was your weird paranoid doomsday scenario.

So i see ignoring valid points made to you with hyperbole is the only tactic you have left.

Figures.

 

[daws101]

Our constitution allows us not just to voice opposition to what we oppose but also to do something about it

"do something about it" Why do you guys have to speak in code all the time? Just come out and say your goal is to silence those who disagree with you by any means necessary.

Not the speaking in code bullshit again?

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Since it's not even close to being true, no.

Ignorance must be bliss.

Says the king of ignorance.

 

[daws101]

And as always you'd be talking out your ass.

if that's all you got left. I win.

Gee, how'd I know you would say that?
Could it be that it's your fall back position when you've had your ass handed to you?

Keep thinking that, oxygen thief.

Just stating fact.
Oxygen thief lol.
I see a tantrum on the horizon.

Tantrums are your side's specialty these days.

More delusional yammering.

 

[martybegan]

"do something about it" Why do you guys have to speak in code all the time? Just come out and say your goal is to silence those who disagree with you by any means necessary.

Not the speaking in code bullshit again?

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Since it's not even close to being true, no.

Ignorance must be bliss.

Says the king of ignorance.

You are the one trying to equate thuggery with the status quo when it comes to suppression of opposing opinions, and having the gall to dress it up as "free speech" for the thugs.

 

[martybegan]

if that's all you got left. I win.

Gee, how'd I know you would say that?
Could it be that it's your fall back position when you've had your ass handed to you?

Keep thinking that, oxygen thief.

Just stating fact.
Oxygen thief lol.
I see a tantrum on the horizon.

Tantrums are your side's specialty these days.

More delusional yammering.

You got nothing, and it shows.

 

[daws101]

Not the speaking in code bullshit again?

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Since it's not even close to being true, no.

Ignorance must be bliss.

Says the king of ignorance.

You are the one trying to equate thuggery with the status quo when it comes to suppression of opposing opinions, and having the gall to dress it up as "free speech" for the thugs.

thugs have free speech too.
no one is suppressing anyone's free speech
then again
free speech
The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government.
key word is government .
it says nothing about private citizens one way or the other.

 

[daws101]

Gee, how'd I know you would say that?
Could it be that it's your fall back position when you've had your ass handed to you?

Keep thinking that, oxygen thief.

Just stating fact.
Oxygen thief lol.
I see a tantrum on the horizon.

Tantrums are your side's specialty these days.

More delusional yammering.

You got nothing, and it shows.

needing something is another part of your delusion in that unless I agree with you I will never have that something you presume to need.

 

[martybegan]

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Since it's not even close to being true, no.

Ignorance must be bliss.

Says the king of ignorance.

You are the one trying to equate thuggery with the status quo when it comes to suppression of opposing opinions, and having the gall to dress it up as "free speech" for the thugs.

thugs have free speech too.
no one is suppressing anyone's free speech
then again
free speech
The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government.
key word is government .
it says nothing about private citizens one way or the other.

Free speech is not just about government, the government involvement is limited by the constitution. However if the mob decides to suppress speech, they don't violate the constitution but they violate the concept of free speech, not through their speech, but their actions.

You keep running back to the "it's not the government doing it, so it's OK" position, and hide from the idea that suppression of speech by any organization is an affront to free expression.

 

[martybegan]

Keep thinking that, oxygen thief.

Just stating fact.
Oxygen thief lol.
I see a tantrum on the horizon.

Tantrums are your side's specialty these days.

More delusional yammering.

You got nothing, and it shows.

needing something is another part of your delusion in that unless I agree with you I will never have that something you presume to need.

Not agreeing with me is not the issue, its that you think you can just dismiss another's argument out of hand, and assume you are winning said argument.

You are arguing from willful ignorance.

 

[daws101]

Since it's not even close to being true, no.

Ignorance must be bliss.

Says the king of ignorance.

You are the one trying to equate thuggery with the status quo when it comes to suppression of opposing opinions, and having the gall to dress it up as "free speech" for the thugs.

thugs have free speech too.
no one is suppressing anyone's free speech
then again
free speech
The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government.
key word is government .
it says nothing about private citizens one way or the other.

Free speech is not just about government, the government involvement is limited by the constitution. However if the mob decides to suppress speech, they don't violate the constitution but they violate the concept of free speech, not through their speech, but their actions.

You keep running back to the "it's not the government doing it, so it's OK" position, and hide from the idea that suppression of speech by any organization is an affront to free expression.

false! it's part of the freedom of expression.

 

[daws101]

Just stating fact.
Oxygen thief lol.
I see a tantrum on the horizon.

Tantrums are your side's specialty these days.

More delusional yammering.

You got nothing, and it shows.

needing something is another part of your delusion in that unless I agree with you I will never have that something you presume to need.

Not agreeing with me is not the issue, its that you think you can just dismiss another's argument out of hand, and assume you are winning said argument.

You are arguing from willful ignorance.

false I only dismiss an argument out of hand when it not a viable , credible one ,
like most all of yours .

 

[daws101]

.
The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence
In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court made history by ruling that, to merit conviction, the violence advocated must be intended, likely and imminent. By Jeff Howard.

Altar with K eagle in black robe at a meeting of nearly 30,000 Ku Klux Klan members from Chicago and northern Illinois. (Photo by Underwood & Underwood under a Creative Commons Public Domain Licence.)
The case

Clarence Brandenburg, a 48 year-old television repair shop owner and leader of the Ku Klux Klan’s Ohio branch, held a rally in the summer of 1964 to articulate and celebrate his white supremacist ideology. Brandenburg proclaimed in front of local TV cameras: “if our president, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken.” Indicating an impending Independence Day march on Washington, DC, the speech included such statements as, “the ****** should be returned to Africa, the Jew returned to Israel.” While Brandenburg was not evidently armed, other Klansmen at the rally were.

Brandenburg was found guilty of violating Ohio state law, which prohibited “advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform,” as well as “voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.” His penalties included a $1,000 fine and a 1-10 year prison sentence.

In a landmark judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction, contending that the Ohio law affronted Brandenburg’s freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Instead, the Court held: “Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Because the rally was not obviously intended to incite specific acts of violence, and because it was not likely to do so, government restriction of Brandenburg’s speech was unconstitutional.

Author opinion

The Supreme Court made a legally and morally compelling decision in insisting that hateful speech be permitted so long as it is not likely to cause imminent harm. In doing so, it reiterated a principle long ago argued by J.S. Mill, who wrote: “An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.” So long as the rights of individual to be free from physical harm are not imminently endangered, the law ought to protect as wide a sphere of free expression as possible.

However, while it is true that the law ought to permit Klansmen to articulate their ideals, it does not follow that we ought to listen politely to their insidious messages without vigorous response. Condemnatory counter-speech is essential. We must never forget that the eponymous protagonist of the Brandenburgcasewas a white supremacist. How rich, indeed, it is for someone like him – who would have keenly destroyed the free speech protections (and much else) afforded to racial minorities were he appointed ruler – to complain that his right to advocate genocide was improperly abridged. As has been recently argued, our law on free speech must be conjoined with a robust ethic of free speech according to which we ought to criticize and condemn the enemies of civilisation who live among us.

- Jeff Howard
The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence

 

[martybegan]

Ignorance must be bliss.

Says the king of ignorance.

You are the one trying to equate thuggery with the status quo when it comes to suppression of opposing opinions, and having the gall to dress it up as "free speech" for the thugs.

thugs have free speech too.
no one is suppressing anyone's free speech
then again
free speech
The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government.
key word is government .
it says nothing about private citizens one way or the other.

Free speech is not just about government, the government involvement is limited by the constitution. However if the mob decides to suppress speech, they don't violate the constitution but they violate the concept of free speech, not through their speech, but their actions.

You keep running back to the "it's not the government doing it, so it's OK" position, and hide from the idea that suppression of speech by any organization is an affront to free expression.

false! it's part of the freedom of expression.

Your freedom of expression ends at my nose.

 

[martybegan]

Tantrums are your side's specialty these days.

More delusional yammering.

You got nothing, and it shows.

needing something is another part of your delusion in that unless I agree with you I will never have that something you presume to need.

Not agreeing with me is not the issue, its that you think you can just dismiss another's argument out of hand, and assume you are winning said argument.

You are arguing from willful ignorance.

false I only dismiss an argument out of hand when it not a viable , credible one ,
like most all of yours .

Bullshit.

 

[daws101]

Says the king of ignorance.

You are the one trying to equate thuggery with the status quo when it comes to suppression of opposing opinions, and having the gall to dress it up as "free speech" for the thugs.

thugs have free speech too.
no one is suppressing anyone's free speech
then again
free speech
The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government.
key word is government .
it says nothing about private citizens one way or the other.

Free speech is not just about government, the government involvement is limited by the constitution. However if the mob decides to suppress speech, they don't violate the constitution but they violate the concept of free speech, not through their speech, but their actions.

You keep running back to the "it's not the government doing it, so it's OK" position, and hide from the idea that suppression of speech by any organization is an affront to free expression.

false! it's part of the freedom of expression.

Your freedom of expression ends at my nose.

And vice versa.
Problem is you don't follow that rule

 

[daws101]

More delusional yammering.

You got nothing, and it shows.

needing something is another part of your delusion in that unless I agree with you I will never have that something you presume to need.

Not agreeing with me is not the issue, its that you think you can just dismiss another's argument out of hand, and assume you are winning said argument.

You are arguing from willful ignorance.

false I only dismiss an argument out of hand when it not a viable , credible one ,
like most all of yours .

Bullshit.

You've just proved my point.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

.
The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence
In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court made history by ruling that, to merit conviction, the violence advocated must be intended, likely and imminent. By Jeff Howard.

Altar with K eagle in black robe at a meeting of nearly 30,000 Ku Klux Klan members from Chicago and northern Illinois. (Photo by Underwood & Underwood under a Creative Commons Public Domain Licence.)
The case

Clarence Brandenburg, a 48 year-old television repair shop owner and leader of the Ku Klux Klan’s Ohio branch, held a rally in the summer of 1964 to articulate and celebrate his white supremacist ideology. Brandenburg proclaimed in front of local TV cameras: “if our president, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken.” Indicating an impending Independence Day march on Washington, DC, the speech included such statements as, “the ****** should be returned to Africa, the Jew returned to Israel.” While Brandenburg was not evidently armed, other Klansmen at the rally were.

Brandenburg was found guilty of violating Ohio state law, which prohibited “advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform,” as well as “voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.” His penalties included a $1,000 fine and a 1-10 year prison sentence.

In a landmark judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction, contending that the Ohio law affronted Brandenburg’s freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Instead, the Court held: “Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Because the rally was not obviously intended to incite specific acts of violence, and because it was not likely to do so, government restriction of Brandenburg’s speech was unconstitutional.

Author opinion

The Supreme Court made a legally and morally compelling decision in insisting that hateful speech be permitted so long as it is not likely to cause imminent harm. In doing so, it reiterated a principle long ago argued by J.S. Mill, who wrote: “An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.” So long as the rights of individual to be free from physical harm are not imminently endangered, the law ought to protect as wide a sphere of free expression as possible.

However, while it is true that the law ought to permit Klansmen to articulate their ideals, it does not follow that we ought to listen politely to their insidious messages without vigorous response. Condemnatory counter-speech is essential. We must never forget that the eponymous protagonist of the Brandenburgcasewas a white supremacist. How rich, indeed, it is for someone like him – who would have keenly destroyed the free speech protections (and much else) afforded to racial minorities were he appointed ruler – to complain that his right to advocate genocide was improperly abridged. As has been recently argued, our law on free speech must be conjoined with a robust ethic of free speech according to which we ought to criticize and condemn the enemies of civilisation who live among us.

- Jeff Howard
The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence

Which one of those people in the photograph is senator byrd?

 

[daws101]

.
The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence
In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court made history by ruling that, to merit conviction, the violence advocated must be intended, likely and imminent. By Jeff Howard.

Altar with K eagle in black robe at a meeting of nearly 30,000 Ku Klux Klan members from Chicago and northern Illinois. (Photo by Underwood & Underwood under a Creative Commons Public Domain Licence.)
The case

Clarence Brandenburg, a 48 year-old television repair shop owner and leader of the Ku Klux Klan’s Ohio branch, held a rally in the summer of 1964 to articulate and celebrate his white supremacist ideology. Brandenburg proclaimed in front of local TV cameras: “if our president, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken.” Indicating an impending Independence Day march on Washington, DC, the speech included such statements as, “the ****** should be returned to Africa, the Jew returned to Israel.” While Brandenburg was not evidently armed, other Klansmen at the rally were.

Brandenburg was found guilty of violating Ohio state law, which prohibited “advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform,” as well as “voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.” His penalties included a $1,000 fine and a 1-10 year prison sentence.

In a landmark judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction, contending that the Ohio law affronted Brandenburg’s freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Instead, the Court held: “Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Because the rally was not obviously intended to incite specific acts of violence, and because it was not likely to do so, government restriction of Brandenburg’s speech was unconstitutional.

Author opinion

The Supreme Court made a legally and morally compelling decision in insisting that hateful speech be permitted so long as it is not likely to cause imminent harm. In doing so, it reiterated a principle long ago argued by J.S. Mill, who wrote: “An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.” So long as the rights of individual to be free from physical harm are not imminently endangered, the law ought to protect as wide a sphere of free expression as possible.

However, while it is true that the law ought to permit Klansmen to articulate their ideals, it does not follow that we ought to listen politely to their insidious messages without vigorous response. Condemnatory counter-speech is essential. We must never forget that the eponymous protagonist of the Brandenburgcasewas a white supremacist. How rich, indeed, it is for someone like him – who would have keenly destroyed the free speech protections (and much else) afforded to racial minorities were he appointed ruler – to complain that his right to advocate genocide was improperly abridged. As has been recently argued, our law on free speech must be conjoined with a robust ethic of free speech according to which we ought to criticize and condemn the enemies of civilisation who live among us.

- Jeff Howard
The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence

Which one of those people in the photograph is senator byrd?

None. slapdick.
Could be some of your relatives though.

 

[daws101]

.
The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence
In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court made history by ruling that, to merit conviction, the violence advocated must be intended, likely and imminent. By Jeff Howard.

Altar with K eagle in black robe at a meeting of nearly 30,000 Ku Klux Klan members from Chicago and northern Illinois. (Photo by Underwood & Underwood under a Creative Commons Public Domain Licence.)
The case

Clarence Brandenburg, a 48 year-old television repair shop owner and leader of the Ku Klux Klan’s Ohio branch, held a rally in the summer of 1964 to articulate and celebrate his white supremacist ideology. Brandenburg proclaimed in front of local TV cameras: “if our president, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken.” Indicating an impending Independence Day march on Washington, DC, the speech included such statements as, “the ****** should be returned to Africa, the Jew returned to Israel.” While Brandenburg was not evidently armed, other Klansmen at the rally were.

Brandenburg was found guilty of violating Ohio state law, which prohibited “advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform,” as well as “voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.” His penalties included a $1,000 fine and a 1-10 year prison sentence.

In a landmark judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction, contending that the Ohio law affronted Brandenburg’s freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Instead, the Court held: “Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Because the rally was not obviously intended to incite specific acts of violence, and because it was not likely to do so, government restriction of Brandenburg’s speech was unconstitutional.

Author opinion

The Supreme Court made a legally and morally compelling decision in insisting that hateful speech be permitted so long as it is not likely to cause imminent harm. In doing so, it reiterated a principle long ago argued by J.S. Mill, who wrote: “An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.” So long as the rights of individual to be free from physical harm are not imminently endangered, the law ought to protect as wide a sphere of free expression as possible.

However, while it is true that the law ought to permit Klansmen to articulate their ideals, it does not follow that we ought to listen politely to their insidious messages without vigorous response. Condemnatory counter-speech is essential. We must never forget that the eponymous protagonist of the Brandenburgcasewas a white supremacist. How rich, indeed, it is for someone like him – who would have keenly destroyed the free speech protections (and much else) afforded to racial minorities were he appointed ruler – to complain that his right to advocate genocide was improperly abridged. As has been recently argued, our law on free speech must be conjoined with a robust ethic of free speech according to which we ought to criticize and condemn the enemies of civilisation who live among us.

- Jeff Howard
The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence

Which one of those people in the photograph is senator byrd?

None. slapdick.
Could be some of your relatives though.

Byrd never attended any Klan "parties."

 

[martybegan]

You are the one trying to equate thuggery with the status quo when it comes to suppression of opposing opinions, and having the gall to dress it up as "free speech" for the thugs.

thugs have free speech too.
no one is suppressing anyone's free speech
then again
free speech
The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government.
key word is government .
it says nothing about private citizens one way or the other.

Free speech is not just about government, the government involvement is limited by the constitution. However if the mob decides to suppress speech, they don't violate the constitution but they violate the concept of free speech, not through their speech, but their actions.

You keep running back to the "it's not the government doing it, so it's OK" position, and hide from the idea that suppression of speech by any organization is an affront to free expression.

false! it's part of the freedom of expression.

Your freedom of expression ends at my nose.

And vice versa.
Problem is you don't follow that rule

How so?