Freedom of Speech vs. Political Correctness

[daws101]

"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?

What are the consequences of having those opinions? Many do, none are in danger of getting fired, jailed, etc. So what are the consequences? Someone thinks you're a dweeb?

Thinks!?

As I said to others, my IQ vs. yours, any day of the week, any hour of the day, any minute of an hour.

Pretentiousness is a classic sign of a less than average IQ.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

PC is the antithesis of free speech.
Liberals abhor any speech that does not kowtow to their agenda. PC is the method by which the liberal agenda is forced upon unwilling parties.

PC is what the right is hooked on, not the left.

Call Palin's kid a retard and they flip.

Straight out of the liberal user's guide.. Take what you do, accuse others of doing it with the intent of making them defend themselves for the sole purpose of deflecting the argument away from the issue...
Sorry lead boy, won't work here.
The partial list of banned words/new terms, according to liberal speech codes...
"Midget/"dwarf"...Lib term.."vertically challenged"
Blind...Replaced with "sight impaired"
Deaf..replaced with "hearing impaired"
Shell shock..Replaced with "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder"
Black..."African American"
Retarded replaced with "Learning disabled"
Disabled/handicapped...Replaced with "Challenged"
Student....replaced with "learner"
English( as a subject in school) Replaced with "language arts"....
History....Replaced with "social studies"....HUH?
Cross dresser/transvestite/closet queen....replaced with the newest craze on planet liberal...."transgender".
Christmas/Holiday break....."Winter break".....
Welfare..Replaced with "public assistance"....
Conservatives didn't invent these terms. You guys did .....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Conservatives have been attempting to kill freedom of expression since their inception.
Kansan Conservatives Fight Against Free Expression, by Charles C. W. Cooke, National Review

Oh please..Enough with the opinion pieces.....

 

[daws101]

Conservatives have been attempting to kill freedom of expression since their inception.
Kansan Conservatives Fight Against Free Expression, by Charles C. W. Cooke, National Review

Oh please..Enough with the opinion pieces.....

Fact is fact.
Don't be a whiny bitch.

 

[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.
.

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.
.

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.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Conservatives have been attempting to kill freedom of expression since their inception.
Kansan Conservatives Fight Against Free Expression, by Charles C. W. Cooke, National Review

Oh please..Enough with the opinion pieces.....

Fact is fact.
Don't be a whiny bitch.

As much as you'd like them to be, opinion pieces are NOT news. Nor are they fact.

 

[daws101]

Conservatives have been attempting to kill freedom of expression since their inception.
Kansan Conservatives Fight Against Free Expression, by Charles C. W. Cooke, National Review

Oh please..Enough with the opinion pieces.....

Fact is fact.
Don't be a whiny bitch.

As much as you'd like them to be, opinion pieces are NOT news. Now are they fact.

My preference plays no part.

 

[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.
.

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.

Intimidation?
Damn funny that!

The sad part is you people have grown complacent with the notion that your political agenda gets to make the rules, you view PC speech codes as the norm.

 

[konradv]

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?"

Aren't you saying "fuck off" right now? IMO, you're the one that's the enemy of free speech. You want the right to be an asshole without anyone having the right to point it out.

 

[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.
.

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?

Specious argument.

 

[candycorn]

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.
.

And you think this is a new thing? Galileo spoke out against the teachings of the Medici and died a broken man….the Vatican apologized quickly; in 1992. Somehow blaming American liberals in the 2000 for something that dates back 500+ years (at least) is pretty lame.

 

[candycorn]

As soon as a Trump supporter calls him a liar, I’ll believe that they are anti PC. So far the entire band of nut jobs who support this small fraction of a man have contorted themselves into rationalizing every blatant lie the man has told.

Needless to say they’ve been pretty busy.

But they are too PC to call him a liar.

Tells you all you need to know about the followers and their new messiah.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?"

Aren't you saying "fuck off" right now? IMO, you're the one that's the enemy of free speech. You want the right to be an asshole without anyone having the right to point it out.

The fact is, you have all the right in the world to point out what you don't like.
The issue at hand is that your side uses terms such as "Offended" ( as if that matters in the grand scheme) to silence the speech of those with whom you do not agree.
The fact is, while one may find another's words to be objectionable, they do not have the right to prevent them from saying it.
We have rules for speech. That's a given. For example, your postal letter carrier has the right to refer to one of Asian customers as a "Zipper head"....That is not a free speech issue,. That is an issue of acceptability. Its an insult meant to belittle that person. That falls under the penal law as an "assault". Yes, one can be guilty of an assault( battery is a term used to refer to physical contact)....A sexual assault would be if a person referred to a woman as a "c*nt" for the purpose of intimidating her or belittling her. That is not only outside the boundaries of civilized speech it also can be construed as threatening.
What you don't get to do is use speech codes and protest to stop for example a person who is an expert at finance from saying to a group of poor people that they are poor because they have not handled their personal finances in a responsible manner.That is neither false nor is it outside the realm of probability..or to a woman that has made 5 babies with 5 different men that they have shown no personal responsibility.
To most people those are observations of fact. On your side those words are "offensive" and must be silenced.
Your side crated PC speech codes as a means to further a political agenda.

 

[daws101]

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.

Intimidation?
Damn funny that!

The sad part is you people have grown complacent with the notion that your political agenda gets to make the rules, you view PC speech codes as the norm.

Speech codes?
Lol!

 

[daws101]

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?

Specious argument.

How?

 

[daws101]

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?"

Aren't you saying "fuck off" right now? IMO, you're the one that's the enemy of free speech. You want the right to be an asshole without anyone having the right to point it out.

The fact is, you have all the right in the world to point out what you don't like.
The issue at hand is that your side uses terms such as "Offended" ( as if that matters in the grand scheme) to silence the speech of those with whom you do not agree.
The fact is, while one may find another's words to be objectionable, they do not have the right to prevent them from saying it.
We have rules for speech. That's a given. For example, your postal letter carrier has the right to refer to one of Asian customers as a "Zipper head"....That is not a free speech issue,. That is an issue of acceptability. Its an insult meant to belittle that person. That falls under the penal law as an "assault". Yes, one can be guilty of an assault( battery is a term used to refer to physical contact)....A sexual assault would be if a person referred to a woman as a "c*nt" for the purpose of intimidating her or belittling her. That is not only outside the boundaries of civilized speech it also can be construed as threatening.
What you don't get to do is use speech codes and protest to stop for example a person who is an expert at finance from saying to a group of poor people that they are poor because they have not handled their personal finances in a responsible manner.That is neither false nor is it outside the realm of probability..or to a woman that has made 5 babies with 5 different men that they have shown no personal responsibility.
To most people those are observations of fact. On your side those words are "offensive" and must be silenced.
Your side crated PC speech codes as a means to further a political agenda.

You took the long way around to say nothing.

 

[thereisnospoon]

As soon as a Trump supporter calls him a liar, I’ll believe that they are anti PC. So far the entire band of nut jobs who support this small fraction of a man have contorted themselves into rationalizing every blatant lie the man has told.

Needless to say they’ve been pretty busy.

But they are too PC to call him a liar.

Tells you all you need to know about the followers and their new messiah.

And here is the perfect example of how your side uses PC speech codes and insults to silence others
You said so yourself...."entire band of nut jobs"...Which implies what? That those who support Trump are somehow in control of the mental faculties and are to be dismissed and silenced....Now please. Before you go knee jerk and reply with "I never stated they should be silenced", think about what you wrote. "Band of nutjobs"....That is a term we used to label those who were what? Placed in asylums as means to protect society from potential harm.....
Don't go thinking for a moment your opposition is not aware of your side's agenda.....

 

[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.
.

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?

Specious argument.

How?

The question is not valid...Of course there is certain speech most people find objectionable.....
Got that, Captain Obvious?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?"

Aren't you saying "fuck off" right now? IMO, you're the one that's the enemy of free speech. You want the right to be an asshole without anyone having the right to point it out.

The fact is, you have all the right in the world to point out what you don't like.
The issue at hand is that your side uses terms such as "Offended" ( as if that matters in the grand scheme) to silence the speech of those with whom you do not agree.
The fact is, while one may find another's words to be objectionable, they do not have the right to prevent them from saying it.
We have rules for speech. That's a given. For example, your postal letter carrier has the right to refer to one of Asian customers as a "Zipper head"....That is not a free speech issue,. That is an issue of acceptability. Its an insult meant to belittle that person. That falls under the penal law as an "assault". Yes, one can be guilty of an assault( battery is a term used to refer to physical contact)....A sexual assault would be if a person referred to a woman as a "c*nt" for the purpose of intimidating her or belittling her. That is not only outside the boundaries of civilized speech it also can be construed as threatening.
What you don't get to do is use speech codes and protest to stop for example a person who is an expert at finance from saying to a group of poor people that they are poor because they have not handled their personal finances in a responsible manner.That is neither false nor is it outside the realm of probability..or to a woman that has made 5 babies with 5 different men that they have shown no personal responsibility.
To most people those are observations of fact. On your side those words are "offensive" and must be silenced.
Your side crated PC speech codes as a means to further a political agenda.

You took the long way around to say nothing.

You are now pedaling backward because you just got hit with the facts and don't know how to respond.
I stated facts. You don't liken them. Your problem

 

[candycorn]

As soon as a Trump supporter calls him a liar, I’ll believe that they are anti PC. So far the entire band of nut jobs who support this small fraction of a man have contorted themselves into rationalizing every blatant lie the man has told.

Needless to say they’ve been pretty busy.

But they are too PC to call him a liar.

Tells you all you need to know about the followers and their new messiah.

And here is the perfect example of how your side uses PC speech codes and insults to silence others
You said so yourself...."entire band of nut jobs"...Which implies what?

That you idiots have been singing the praises of conservatism for over 2 years now and when you have a conservative that can actually win the GOP nomination, you vote for the most liberal opponent he has. For starters.

That you believe the most ridiculous promises he has made is another.

That you have bitched about BHO not having experience for 8 years and now are looking to elect someone with even less for another.

I could continue enumerating the many nutty behaviors of you guys until the cows come home. That you are supposedly for "family values" and are openly rooting for someone who uses salty language on the stump.

That you think Mexico will pay for the silly wall....

It goes on and on.


And of course, no mention of Trump's numerous lies. I put the ball on the tee for you to show how non-PC you can be and what do you do...cower behind the cloak of political correctness.