Freedom of Speech vs. Political Correctness

[Ravi]

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.

He's not a whiny bitch, he's a plaintive critiquer

 

[martybegan]

"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?

Mozilla CEO resigns, opposition to gay marriage drew fire

Suck it, Trebek.

That's on him. He obviously can't handle criticism.

Bullshit.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You are the one who questioned my ability to think, and I answered. A Retort is not pretentiousness.

 

[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?

Specious argument.

How?

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

Of course it is a valid question. You're whining about speech having consequences. Speech always has, and always will have consequences.

 

[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?

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

The question is valid. .your response is not.

 

[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.

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

Bullshit ! I responded appropriately everything you said (as always) is specious and subjective not to mention bias.

 

[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.

He's not a whiny bitch, he's a plaintive critiquer

That's one way to put it!

 

[daws101]

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.

You are the one who questioned my ability to think, and I answered. A Retort is not pretentiousness.

In regards to you it is.
Constantly pointing out how smart you believe you are is the definition of pretentious.

 

[hazlnut]

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?"

Please give an example of Government hindering via law your freedom of speech under the guise of "political correctness".


As you know, the first amendment does not protect you from people responding negatively to your speech -- i.e. backlash or boycotts -- those too are protected rights.

 

[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?"

Please give an example of Government hindering via law your freedom of speech under the guise of "political correctness".


As you know, the first amendment does not protect you from people responding negatively to your speech -- i.e. backlash or boycotts -- those too are protected rights.

Again highlighting bulldog's point speech has consequences.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You are the one who questioned my ability to think, and I answered. A Retort is not pretentiousness.

In regards to you it is.
Constantly pointing out how smart you believe you are is the definition of pretentious.

Again, not when you are the one bringing it up by questioning my intelligence. If I just brought it up out of the blue, you may have had a point, but considering you are the one bringing it into question, any retort is justified and should even be expected.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

You are the one who questioned my ability to think, and I answered. A Retort is not pretentiousness.

In regards to you it is.
Constantly pointing out how smart you believe you are is the definition of pretentious.

Again, not when you are the one bringing it up by questioning my intelligence. If I just brought it up out of the blue, you may have had a point, but considering you are the one bringing it into question, any retort is justified and should even be expected.

Can you say "reduced to nitpicking" ?

 

[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.
.

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.
.

 

[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.
.

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.

I'm just pointing out the behavior.
.

 

[hazlnut]

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?"

Please give an example of Government hindering via law your freedom of speech under the guise of "political correctness".


As you know, the first amendment does not protect you from people responding negatively to your speech -- i.e. backlash or boycotts -- those too are protected rights.

Again highlighting bulldog's point speech has consequences.

I would just like an example of a law that forces "political correctness" or bans "politically incorrect" speech.

People talking about "political correctness" is not a violation of 1st Amendment, it is free speech.

A negative response or backlash to free speech is free speech in and of itself.

A call for a boycott = free speech.

A editorial calling someone bigoted = free speech.

You free speech protections don't protect you from boycotts and backlash... just government regulation and overreach, laws.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You are the one who questioned my ability to think, and I answered. A Retort is not pretentiousness.

In regards to you it is.
Constantly pointing out how smart you believe you are is the definition of pretentious.

Again, not when you are the one bringing it up by questioning my intelligence. If I just brought it up out of the blue, you may have had a point, but considering you are the one bringing it into question, any retort is justified and should even be expected.

Can you say "reduced to nitpicking" ?

Can you say bite me?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The loudest supporters of free speech tend to be the people who want to shout down any opinion that they dont agree with.
PC is just good manners and a bit of sensitivity. As such it is a bit of a problem for some.

 

[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.

I'm just pointing out the behavior.
.

Okay...but at what point does "behavior" become human nature? I mean, the stuff in Italy was 500 years ago. Doesn't make it right--I see your point-- but I can't help but think that after 5 centuries (and I could probably search and find examples still older of those imprisoned for their beliefs) we can chalk it up to not exactly being a new phenomenon.

 

[JFK_USA]

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.

 

[Ravi]

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?

Mozilla CEO resigns, opposition to gay marriage drew fire

Suck it, Trebek.

That's on him. He obviously can't handle criticism.

Bullshit.

He quit, even though the board of directors stood up for him. He is now the CEO of another company. The entire thing was probably his BS way of getting out of Mozilla as his business methods weren't approved of. Sucks to be you!