Freedom of Speech vs. Political Correctness

[BULLDOG]

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

Too bad that courtesy won't be returned.
.

They either really don't get it, or they do get it and have decided to ignore their own inherent thuggery.

I'm pretty sure they get it but won't bend.

This has been a fabulously successful model for them for a long time.

Look at what they're saying in their posts: It's essentially, "tough shit".

Okay, and I can keep pointing it out.
.

Let me make this really simple for you. If people feel you are being unfair to them, they will respond. That's just the way people are built. If you don't like that then "TOUGH SHIT" get over it

Yep, tough shit, I know.

You'll keep punishing and intimidating.

I won't. I'm not afraid of words.
.

How is expressing that pov intimidating?
Both "sides" had their say.
Unless I'm wrong the argument you are making is about wanting no consequences to any kind for speech.

No. He doesn't advocate no consequences at all. Just no consequences for him.

 

[Agit8r]

Next we will examine the prohibition on illegal searches and seizures, and how it applies to your girlfriend going through your phone

 

[daws101]

Next we will examine the prohibition on illegal searches and seizures, and how it applies to your girlfriend going through your phone

Or your wallet.

 

[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.
.

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?

Nothing....That's the point,.
Ben Wright, former commentator for CBS golf coverage was interviewed and asked question as to why the LPGA tour was not gaining popularity.
Remembering this was a much different time 25 years ago, one the point which in the British way of being delicate, use the term, "lesbian".....He was summarily fired for being factual.
Quite frankly in the 1980's and 1990's the LPGA tour was dominated by women who were out lesbians. And this affected viewership and sponsor opportunities.
But, because feminism was in full steam and most women who called themselves feminists( led by a lesbian, Camille Paglia) were lesbians, they shrieked in protest. CBS fearing backlash from women's groups, caved and relieved Wright of his duties.
Now, as it applied unequally....and this next incident is used to illustrate the hypocrisy of PC and how it is administered....Dusty Baker then manager of the Cubs made a statement that had he been Caucasian have resulted in his immediate dismissal, that White players can't handle the heat of summer and that is why their stats fall off in the warmer months. Baker's comments went unchallenged...Now had a white person said, "there aren't any black people on the US Ski team because black people don''t care for the cold, that person would have been fired and never heard from again. His or her career ruined.
The main objection PC other than its total opposition to normal behavior and use of logic, is the fact that it is enforced unequally and selectively. Those enforcing it are acting in a hypocritical manner.

 

[Agit8r]

Next we will examine the prohibition on illegal searches and seizures, and how it applies to your girlfriend going through your phone

Or your wallet.

Or in the case of the Drumpfites; their mothers checking their browsing history.

 

[daws101]

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?

Nothing....That's the point,.
Ben Wright, former commentator for CBS golf coverage was interviewed and asked question as to why the LPGA tour was not gaining popularity.
Remembering this was a much different time 25 years ago, one the point which in the British way of being delicate, use the term, "lesbian".....He was summarily fired for being factual.
Quite frankly in the 1980's and 1990's the LPGA tour was dominated by women who were out lesbians. And this affected viewership and sponsor opportunities.
But, because feminism was in full steam and most women who called themselves feminists( led by a lesbian, Camille Paglia) were lesbians, they shrieked in protest. CBS fearing backlash from women's groups, caved and relieved Wright of his duties.
Now, as it applied unequally....and this next incident is used to illustrate the hypocrisy of PC and how it is administered....Dusty Baker then manager of the Cubs made a statement that had he been Caucasian have resulted in his immediate dismissal, that White players can't handle the heat of summer and that is why their stats fall off in the warmer months. Baker's comments went unchallenged...Now had a white person said, "there aren't any black people on the US Ski team because black people don''t care for the cold, that person would have been fired and never heard from again. His or her career ruined.
The main objection PC other than its total opposition to normal behavior and use of logic, is the fact that it is enforced unequally and selectively. Those enforcing it are acting in a hypocritical manner.

 

[rightwinger]

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?"

PC has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech allows you to be criticized for the things you say. Trump also uses his freedom to criticize others

 

[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?"

PC has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech allows you to be criticized for the things you say. Trump also uses his freedom to criticize others

Then morphs into a diva when he is called on his shit.

 

[Mac1958]

The PC Police pretend that PC is about criticizing only.

If that were only the case.
.

 

[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?

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

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

You choose to issue consequences.
.

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

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

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You choose to issue consequences.
.

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

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

The Constitution protects you from criminal penalties because of what you have said

It does not exempt you from criticism of what you say

Your freedom of speech: I hate n*ggers, Mexicans, muslims and jews
My freedom of speech: That is a despicable thing to say and I encourage others to condemn you

Is this a great country or what?

 

[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.
.

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

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

1. It is not okay for black people to make racists statements about non black people. It isn't illegal any more than your desire to scream ****** is illegal.

2. Please stop hitting return on your posts mid-sentence, the sentences will wrap around themselves and your posts will be easier to read.

 

[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.

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

The Constitution protects you from criminal penalties because of what you have said

It does not exempt you from criticism of what you say

Your freedom of speech: I hate n*ggers, Mexicans, muslims and jews
My freedom of speech: That is a despicable thing to say and I encourage others to condemn you

Is this a great country or what?

I agree. Criticism is as American as (insert good American thing here).

But that has never been my point, ever. Not once. Ever.

I don't know why you're acting as if it is.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.
.

Bullshit.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

The same way a criminal with gun forcing you hand over your wallet is "taking away" your right to dispose of your property as you see fit. IMHO If one person prevents another person from exercising his/her rights then it's an infringement upon that persons liberty and thus immoral, the method or means used *may* not be illegal but it's still immoral and shouldn't be tolerated in a civilized, free society.

Oh, I agree it shouldn't be tolerated, and it's nice seeing the pushback continue.

These people are liars and cowards.
.

I win. Mac said "pushback" again.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

"Okay" is not an answer to my question, Brainiac.

This is great. The anti-PC retard is arguing with the anti-PC passive aggressive asshole. Who will win?

 

[LoneLaugher]

The proper response to speech you don't like is 1) disagreeing with the person 2)disagreeing and arguing your point or 3) disagreeing and telling the person to piss off. The proper response is not trying to ruin them, or trying to silence them, or trying to intimidate them into silence.

The proper response for mature, reasonable adults to speech you don't like is 1) disagreeing with the person 2)disagreeing and arguing your point or 3) disagreeing and telling the person to piss off. The proper response is not trying to ruin them, or trying to silence them, or trying to intimidate them into silence.

There, fixed it.
.

Or,.....you could cover your ears. Maybe with earmuffs.

 

[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.
.

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

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

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

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

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

Well yeah but you have to take it further;

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

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

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

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

 

[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?

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

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

You choose to issue consequences.
.

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

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

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

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

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

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

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

You choose to issue consequences.
.

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

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

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

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

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

Those on the political left are ignoring this important fact