Our first admendment rights are all but gone

[Darkwind]

I'm just curious. How do you people define consequence?

Everyone seems to be in agreement that if you speak some shit, you can be made to pay for that speech if it isn't popular. But you all say that is no threat to free speech.

What if the consequence was to kill the person who says something that is not popular. After all, that is just a consequence to free speech.

Or how about just a little maiming? That will teach them to not speak out of turn. But hey, they said it so its proof that free speech is still alive....

I'm curious. If the consequences are so abhorrent that people fear to speak out, how is it that speech is still free and open?

Unpopular speech MUST remain the freest speech in the land, otherwise we can simply say that we no longer have free speech. Say something unpopular, and the mob will come for you.

 

[The Rabbi]

So it's not a fact that sponsors pulled out? It's not a fact that the players threatened a boycott?
Such a chronic liar you are.
No 1st amendment right was violated...

So it's not a fact that he was fined 2.5M? It's not a fact he's been banned for life? It's not a fact they want to force the sale of his property?
You sure are one dishonest piece of shit. Like that wasn' tknown already.

So it's not a fact that sponsors pulled out? It's not a fact that the players threatened a boycott?
Such a chronic liar you are.
No 1st amendment right was violated.

Those are facts. Now you might want to concentrate on relevant facts. Here's a hint: I posted some, you didnt.

 

[Plasmaball]

Correct that no first amendment rights were violated.

Government stayed out of it (except for one racist loudmouth acting in an unofficial capacity).

But what the league did demonstrates that NO sport should be entitled to an anti-trust exception. Congress needs to get cracking and end that right now as The NBA, particularly, has demonstrated that it is an out-of-control monoply. In fact, it might even be ripe for old-fashioned "Standard Oil" breakup.

hahahahhahaaahhaahahhaahahahhahaahha Congress wont touch this period. No 1st amendment rights where violated

 

[Plasmaball]

So it's not a fact that he was fined 2.5M? It's not a fact he's been banned for life? It's not a fact they want to force the sale of his property?
You sure are one dishonest piece of shit. Like that wasn' tknown already.

So it's not a fact that sponsors pulled out? It's not a fact that the players threatened a boycott?
Such a chronic liar you are.
No 1st amendment right was violated.

Those are facts. Now you might want to concentrate on relevant facts. Here's a hint: I posted some, you didnt.

mine are..thank you

 

[Plasmaball]

I'm just curious. How do you people define consequence?

Everyone seems to be in agreement that if you speak some shit, you can be made to pay for that speech if it isn't popular. But you all say that is no threat to free speech.

What if the consequence was to kill the person who says something that is not popular. After all, that is just a consequence to free speech.

Or how about just a little maiming? That will teach them to not speak out of turn. But hey, they said it so its proof that free speech is still alive....

I'm curious. If the consequences are so abhorrent that people fear to speak out, how is it that speech is still free and open?

Unpopular speech MUST remain the freest speech in the land, otherwise we can simply say that we no longer have free speech. Say something unpopular, and the mob will come for you.

sterling still has the right to profess his thoughts openly...Society has deemed they want no part in it.

 

[The Rabbi]

So it's not a fact that sponsors pulled out? It's not a fact that the players threatened a boycott?
Such a chronic liar you are.
No 1st amendment right was violated.

Those are facts. Now you might want to concentrate on relevant facts. Here's a hint: I posted some, you didnt.

mine are..thank you

No, they're not. No surprise you can't distinguish a relevant fact from an irrelevant one. You cannot read a simple sentence and derive reasonable conclusions. Because you are a dumb-dumb.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm just curious. How do you people define consequence?

Everyone seems to be in agreement that if you speak some shit, you can be made to pay for that speech if it isn't popular. But you all say that is no threat to free speech.

What if the consequence was to kill the person who says something that is not popular. After all, that is just a consequence to free speech.

Or how about just a little maiming? That will teach them to not speak out of turn. But hey, they said it so its proof that free speech is still alive....

I'm curious. If the consequences are so abhorrent that people fear to speak out, how is it that speech is still free and open?

Unpopular speech MUST remain the freest speech in the land, otherwise we can simply say that we no longer have free speech. Say something unpopular, and the mob will come for you.

sterling still has the right to profess his thoughts openly...Society has deemed they want no part in it.

If he suffers monetary harm then it is not a right anymore. It's like saying, He can say what he wants. ANd then people can beat him up for it and that's OK.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm just curious. How do you people define consequence?

Everyone seems to be in agreement that if you speak some shit, you can be made to pay for that speech if it isn't popular. But you all say that is no threat to free speech.

What if the consequence was to kill the person who says something that is not popular. After all, that is just a consequence to free speech.

Or how about just a little maiming? That will teach them to not speak out of turn. But hey, they said it so its proof that free speech is still alive....

I'm curious. If the consequences are so abhorrent that people fear to speak out, how is it that speech is still free and open?

Unpopular speech MUST remain the freest speech in the land, otherwise we can simply say that we no longer have free speech. Say something unpopular, and the mob will come for you.

They don't have to intimidate.

They don't have to punish.

They choose to.

They could use offensive speech as a springboard for constructive public discourse, but constructive public discourse might lead to solutions and understanding, and that would be bad news for them, since there is political advantage in continued division.

.

 

[Plasmaball]

I'm just curious. How do you people define consequence?

Everyone seems to be in agreement that if you speak some shit, you can be made to pay for that speech if it isn't popular. But you all say that is no threat to free speech.

What if the consequence was to kill the person who says something that is not popular. After all, that is just a consequence to free speech.

Or how about just a little maiming? That will teach them to not speak out of turn. But hey, they said it so its proof that free speech is still alive....

I'm curious. If the consequences are so abhorrent that people fear to speak out, how is it that speech is still free and open?

Unpopular speech MUST remain the freest speech in the land, otherwise we can simply say that we no longer have free speech. Say something unpopular, and the mob will come for you.

sterling still has the right to profess his thoughts openly...Society has deemed they want no part in it.

If he suffers monetary harm then it is not a right anymore. It's like saying, He can say what he wants. ANd then people can beat him up for it and that's OK.

ah the fyrefox excuse.....Yeah no..

 

[Darkwind]

I'm just curious. How do you people define consequence?

Everyone seems to be in agreement that if you speak some shit, you can be made to pay for that speech if it isn't popular. But you all say that is no threat to free speech.

What if the consequence was to kill the person who says something that is not popular. After all, that is just a consequence to free speech.

Or how about just a little maiming? That will teach them to not speak out of turn. But hey, they said it so its proof that free speech is still alive....

I'm curious. If the consequences are so abhorrent that people fear to speak out, how is it that speech is still free and open?

Unpopular speech MUST remain the freest speech in the land, otherwise we can simply say that we no longer have free speech. Say something unpopular, and the mob will come for you.

They don't have to intimidate.

They don't have to punish.

They choose to.

They could use offensive speech as a springboard for constructive public discourse, but constructive public discourse might lead to solutions and understanding, and that would be bad news for them, since there is political advantage in continued division.

.

I agree with this.

However, I am not opposed to people boycotting and using other methods of expressing their displeasure. But when the actions go directly after a persons income or property, then I have to say that we are losing our free speech.

It would be like Me saying that Barack Obama is a failed presdient, and because the powers that be don't like that, they take away My house.

They'll then say, your free speech rights have not been infringed upon, you are free to say it again!

 

[SteadyMercury]

I do not agree with one ounce of what that LA clipper owner said. But he said it in his own home .. Our freedom of speech is a thing of the past. I hope you liberals are happy

there was no violation of his first amendment right.

he has every right to spew whatever racist garbage he wants.

that doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and there won't be any repercussions.

70% of the NBA are people of color. advertisers dissociated themselves from the team in droves. the players didn't want to play for the doddering racist fool.

this isn't a first amendment issue.

jeeze louise....

Exactly.

Freedom of speech is the most misunderstood, most often incorrectly referenced constitutional right... if I call my boss an asshole and he fires me, my right to freedom of speech has not been violated. Was free to do so, and free to have his boot print on my ass.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm reminded of those Union members who showed up and terrorized the teenager of a corporation because of a wage dispute.

Would it then be appropriate for the CEO to hire a few dozen professional security guards and then proceed to 'tune up' the union members?

After all, they were exercising free speech and were staying on the sidewalk. But you know, there are consequences to speech and it wasn't the government that did this to them.

 

[Darkwind]

I do not agree with one ounce of what that LA clipper owner said. But he said it in his own home .. Our freedom of speech is a thing of the past. I hope you liberals are happy

there was no violation of his first amendment right.

he has every right to spew whatever racist garbage he wants.

that doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and there won't be any repercussions.

70% of the NBA are people of color. advertisers dissociated themselves from the team in droves. the players didn't want to play for the doddering racist fool.

this isn't a first amendment issue.

jeeze louise....

Exactly.

Freedom of speech is the most misunderstood, most often incorrectly referenced constitutional right... if I call my boss an asshole and he fires me, my right to freedom of speech has not been violated. Was free to do so, and free to have his boot print on my ass.

So, its only free if you are willing to pay the price.....

 

[Plasmaball]

I'm reminded of those Union members who showed up and terrorized the teenager of a corporation because of a wage dispute.

Would it then be appropriate for the CEO to hire a few dozen professional security guards and then proceed to 'tune up' the union members?

After all, they were exercising free speech and were staying on the sidewalk. But you know, there are consequences to speech and it wasn't the government that did this to them.

this really need explained to you?

 

[The Rabbi]

there was no violation of his first amendment right.

he has every right to spew whatever racist garbage he wants.

that doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and there won't be any repercussions.

70% of the NBA are people of color. advertisers dissociated themselves from the team in droves. the players didn't want to play for the doddering racist fool.

this isn't a first amendment issue.

jeeze louise....

Exactly.

Freedom of speech is the most misunderstood, most often incorrectly referenced constitutional right... if I call my boss an asshole and he fires me, my right to freedom of speech has not been violated. Was free to do so, and free to have his boot print on my ass.

So, its only free if you are willing to pay the price.....

People concoct idiotic examples and then wonder why no one buys it.
A more apt example would be that you publish a letter to the editor praising Obama and on your next job interview you're told they don't hire Obama supporters.

 

[Howey]

I do not agree with one ounce of what that LA clipper owner said. But he said it in his own home .. Our freedom of speech is a thing of the past. I hope you liberals are happy

He has the right to say what he wants. He merely lacks the balls to accept responsibility for his racist comments.

Just as the hundreds of millions of Americans, left and right, have the right to call him a racist pig.

 

[Howey]

But hey...you guys are concerned about your first amendment right, feel free to move to the land of free speech, your hero The Pootin 's Russia.

There may be a few gulags left for you to speak your mind.

 

[The Rabbi]

I do not agree with one ounce of what that LA clipper owner said. But he said it in his own home .. Our freedom of speech is a thing of the past. I hope you liberals are happy

He has the right to say what he wants. He merely lacks the balls to accept responsibility for his racist comments.

Just as the hundreds of millions of Americans, left and right, have the right to call him a racist pig.

I haven't seen him fighting the outcome, have you? Perhaps you lack balls. Let's see what happens when you express soemthing unpopular and you get fired for it. That's assuming anyone in his right mind would hire you to begin with.

 

[HenryBHough]

Were I an employer with a need to downsize in order to escape the burdens of Obamacare (the oft-delayed for political expediency Obamcare) my first task would be to walk through the company parking lot.

Can anyone guess why?

 

[hangover]

there was no violation of his first amendment right.

he has every right to spew whatever racist garbage he wants.

that doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and there won't be any repercussions.

70% of the NBA are people of color. advertisers dissociated themselves from the team in droves. the players didn't want to play for the doddering racist fool.

this isn't a first amendment issue.

jeeze louise....

Exactly.

Freedom of speech is the most misunderstood, most often incorrectly referenced constitutional right... if I call my boss an asshole and he fires me, my right to freedom of speech has not been violated. Was free to do so, and free to have his boot print on my ass.

So, its only free if you are willing to pay the price.....

Ta Da! SCOTUS says money is free speech. But if it costs, it's not free.