The Value of Free Speech

[thereisnospoon]

What part of the Constitution encourages hate speech and actions? It seems like the principles are up for debate. The preamble highlights some basic concepts

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Where does any of that say you get to discriminate against anyone because you dont personally agree with their sex life?

Where does any of that say you get to curtail anyone's rights because you don't personally agree with their opinions?

Where it says insure domestic Tranquility and promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. You cant keep your extended rights by transgressing on someone elses human rights. Human rights always take precedence.

That cuts both ways, genius.
You libs are so used to holding yourselves out as victims to the point that you believe you are entitled 'special rights'...Or 'more equal'...Doesn't work that way.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Where it says insure domestic Tranquility and promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. You cant keep your extended rights by transgressing on someone elses human rights. Human rights always take precedence.

There is no right to not be offended.

You seem to believe there is. You are wrong.

Who said anything about being offended? I said discriminated against. There is a difference.

Same difference. These people were not harmed or injured. Their rights were not violated.
A business owner simply declined a contract proposal. Which is his right.
The complainant is free to avail themselves of other businesses. That is their recourse. Not the civil courts.
You people believe that any perceived slight is grounds to avail yourselves of the civil court system as though it were your very own personal lottery terminal.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Who said anything about being offended? I said discriminated against. There is a difference.

Indeed there is. But when discussing the First Amendment, we're talking about speech.

PC speech codes are about not offending anyone -- scratch that; they're about not offending Democrat special interest groups.

Offending Christians, Jews, and conservatives is A-OK, and can be thought of as justice.

Right?

Now there are codes?

Tell me, what is it that you are afraid to say.....that you want to say....in your daily goings on? What code words are you being intimidated into not using?

Yes there are. Earlier in the thread I posted several links offering examples of PC speech 'codes' so insidious to the extent that these 'codes' often bestow special rights on those who believe there exists a right to not be offended. No such right exists.
The response is, grow a thicker skin...

 

[hipeter924]

No I am right period. I know what I would support or not. Youre the ones that wrong. You dont know what i would support.

They don't care that there is no threat at all to their 'free speech', and they can't come to grips with change whether it is Obama, LGBT marriage, or that in any tolerant society there has to be restrictions on speech. But we are not here to educate them on the constitution: Education for Freedom Lesson 4

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Limits of Freedom of Speech[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Clear and Present Danger[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” [/FONT][/FONT]

They claim to be the authority on the constitution, even though the Supreme Court disagrees with them. I am in the right here.

So just let me call you two on your flawed interpretations of the First Amendment.

Intentionally provoking confrontations and violence with your mouth is one thing, stating a simple opinion is another. Believing in a religion is another. I cannot believe you would sit there and try to twist the meaning of the First Amendment that way. Since when have any of my opinions started a riot? Or started an all out war? If all my opinion turns out to be is an opinion, then it can't possibly provoke violence. If I don't care for a certain group of people I say so. Does that mean I want to do them harm? Most certainly not!

You are trying to blur the lines between what is "acceptable" and "unacceptable."

*shrug* Misinterpret what I said, or just fill this thread with words I never said. You're funny, because there is no 'blur', just the modern interpretation being the same as my own. Keep dreaming if you think the constitution in any shape or form justifies violence on 'free speech' grounds, dream even more about your opinions being 'erased'. Hate speech laws and anti-discrimination laws are enforced elsewhere, and some are enforced in the US - to no ill effects on freedom of speech and expression.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That video really hits a nerve with you libs..Good.
Oh, it's as real as it gets.
Tough shit.
This is representative of your sides point of view..And you'll just have to live with it.

How's the baseball coaching coming along?

How's your crochet class coming?

Still hurts, huh. Being discovered as a liar after just a few posts here. You should have been honest.

 

[daveman]

He stole that from the left, but don't let facts get in your way.

Free speech zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Borillar only objects when Republicans do it.

Pot, meet the kettle. It's black too.

One of the vast number of differences between us is I don't forgive my side for doing what I condemn your side for.

I'm not a hypocrite.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Start your own thread.

Awwww. You don't want to answer? What a shocker.

I DID answer, you moron. I said I don't have to watch what I say because I don't work with any sissy bedwetter liberals.

Holy crap, you're dumb.

Then why did you answer again? You stupid? I posed that question to all of you nutters....you tried to answer for all of them....by not answering. Fuckin' duh.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How's the baseball coaching coming along?

How's your crochet class coming?

He's sewing a red line.

ZING! You will surely get a ton of rep for that one, genius. How's the job search coming along. Need help with your résumé?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Free speech zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Borillar only objects when Republicans do it.

Pot, meet the kettle. It's black too.

One of the vast number of differences between us is I don't forgive my side for doing what I condemn your side for.

I'm not a hypocrite.

Sure you do. Sure you are.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What part of the Constitution encourages hate speech and actions? It seems like the principles are up for debate. The preamble highlights some basic concepts

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Where does any of that say you get to discriminate against anyone because you dont personally agree with their sex life?

What the FUCK is wrong with you?

The Constitution does not exist to encourage anything, it exist to you from the FUCKING government. If you actually succeed in making hate speech illegal, or telling people they have to attend weddings even when they don't want to, what will prevent someone else from coming along and telling you you can't talk about being black because it is hate speech against whites? Or telling you that you have to go see a special screening of Stormfront, the Movie? Do you even have enough brains to cause a virus to get warm if we converted all of them to energy and sett off an explosion inside of it?

Nothing is wrong with me. We just disagree. I know thats an alien concept to you but try not to show how frustrated you are. The Constitution does encourage us to think about the concepts contained within it. Thats why its written down.

I never said to make hate speech illegal. I said it was destructive. Me talking about me being black has nothing to do with a white person so why would that be considered hate speech?

I don't advocate telling anyone they have to attend a wedding. However if they have a business used by the public they should and will give everyone the same standard of service regardless of the personal beliefs. If their personal beliefs are more important then they should not be licensed to serve the public as it consists of people that may cause a conflict.

I can see you are emotional about this so I wont address everything else in your post. Please take a chill pill.

"However if they have a business used by the public they should and will give everyone the same standard of service regardless of the personal beliefs. If their personal beliefs are more important then they should not be licensed to serve the public as it consists of people that may cause a conflict."
Now see, that is where you are wrong on many levels.
I explained this to you earlier.
One more time. There are public accommodations laws which protect the public against certain types of discrimination.
Then there is contract law.
This particular case deals with the latter. And under the law a business cannot be compelled to offer services to anyone.
Now, if for example a white guy walks into a black owned nightclub and wants a beer. The black bartender says "we don't serve your kind here. Get out ,cracker.'...THAT is illegal discrimination based on public accommodations laws.
If the same white guy wants to have that black owned pub cater a party and the owner says, "I will get back to you". The owner of the night club not wanting to deal with that particular individual, simply ignores the request. His right to not enter a business agreement with an individual. Case closed. The guy is free to seek out other bars to cater his party. The white guy was not harmed.

 

[MikeK]

If you are an American, this is one of the most valuable rights afforded to you a citizen of the United States. Freedom of speech. It has been throughout history tested and tried, but it stood the test of time. People say, "My government infringes on my right to freedom of speech!" well, I would count my blessings if I were you. China does not value that right, and will without hesitation take it from you. It is getting to that point here, with the NSA watching what you do on the internet and who you call on the phone. Our freedom of speech is now in danger, in China it's gone. A chilling reminder of our future if we allow it to happen.

BEIJING—A forceful campaign of intimidation against China's most influential Internet users has cast a chill over public debate in the country and called into question the long-term viability of its most vibrant social-media platform.

In an offensive that some critics have likened to the political purges of the Mao era, Beijing has recently detained or interrogated several high-profile social-media figures, issued warnings to others to watch what they say and expanded criminal laws to make it easier to prosecute people for their online activity—all part of what one top propaganda official described on Tuesday as "the purification of the online environment."

China Intensifies Social-Media Crackdown - WSJ.com

It’s more a chilling reminder of your ignorance of First Amendment jurisprudence and the shameful propensity by you and others on the right to engage in demagoguery.

Our freedom of speech is in no way ‘in danger,’ and to compare the United States with China concerning free expression rights is ignorant idiocy.

I don't know about that. I think he has a point.

Of course our situation does not compare at all with that of China. But recent revelations about NSA's autonomous surveillance of our private communications undoubtedly will have a chilling effect on the willingness of many to fully express their political thinking on the Internet, on the telephone, and in writing. And I predict the first time a reported example of one's private communications resulting in arrest, or even an "interview" by federal agents, will be the beginning of the end of free of speech as we have known it. Because the average American will be justifiably intimidated and reluctant to risk arrest by what incrementally is becoming the American KGB.

Our government already has demonstrated its contempt for the Constitution with specific reference to the formation of the V.I.P.E.R. program, which deploys squads of S.W.A.T. cops to airports, bus stations, sporting events, etc. and randomly performs searches of the bodies and belongings of whomever they choose -- in clear and direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. And while government calls that "security," I call it a very big step in a very dangerous direction.

What would you call it?

 

[daveman]

So you do support ineffective government and chaos in society? I'm glad you are being truthful. I got it now. RW's would rather the ship sink completely if it means plugging the holes created by their actions.

The world will not end if you get offended, Skippy.

Yes, I know you loath freedom. You could always move to one of the progressive paradises where you won't have to put up with it.

Bye.

I know it wont end because of me. I'm just one of billions. I love freedom. I just dislike dumbasses with nothing to say positive. Since I was born here and my ancestors contributed to making this nation I think I'll stay where I'm at.

Your like or dislike is utterly and completely immaterial.

Got that?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now there are codes?

Tell me, what is it that you are afraid to say.....that you want to say....in your daily goings on? What code words are you being intimidated into not using?

None.

But I don't work with any liberals.

What? This PC thing does not influence you in any way? Is that what you are saying?

I wonder if anyone here who is complaining about PC in America has a personal anecdote describing when their free speech was infringed upon by PC.

Lets stop talking about some shit that "happens all the time" and start getting some actual examples to work with.

I can tell you....as a liberal....that I have never tried to stop anyone from saying any word or phrase. I have told people who say stupid shit....that they said stupid shit.....but I have never tried to take advantage of them in any way.

Come on.........lets have those personal storiies of how people have personally been intimidated by the PC police.

Why not. Because it DOES happen all the time.
Your side uses the same argument regarding voter ID laws.
You cannot have it both ways.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where it says insure domestic Tranquility and promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. You cant keep your extended rights by transgressing on someone elses human rights. Human rights always take precedence.

How does me calling you an idiot ass transgress your human rights?

It doesnt. Where did you see me type that. It does make you look like and idiot though.

Pointing out your choice to be ignorant does not make me look like an idiot, but thanks for admitting that you don't really believe speech is harmful.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who said anything about being offended? I said discriminated against. There is a difference.

I have every fucking right in the world to discriminate because I am not the fucking government. Only a moronic ass wipe that can't count to 1 would have a problem understanding that.

Thats correct. You do. However I have the right to sue your ass in court and shut down your business like what happened to the dumbasses that lost their bakery.

No you don't, I only take customers by referral because I hate working for idiots.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yeah, well the right was fine with Bush's "Free Speech Zones". Seems they are willing to put up with anything as long as there is a "R" after it.

He stole that from the left, but don't let facts get in your way.

Really? Who else had "Free Speech Zones"? And if the right is using the same tactics as the left, how are they any different much less superior?

Modesto Junior College.Google "student barred from distributing US Constitution"...
In that story there is mention of MJC's 'free speech zone'....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was addressing an earlier example use regarding the civil suit against the bakery. As illiterate as someones view is they do have the right to express it verbally. I would support an amendment that said you must provide a solution instead of just criticizing so everyone could see how warped your thinking may or may not be.

You are wrong, period.

No I am right period. I know what I would support or not. Youre the ones that wrong. You dont know what i would support.

You think part of the reason the government exists is for the of forcing people to go places and do things they don't want to do. That makes you wrong, every single time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hate speech is destructive to any society attempting reconcile different groups. Dont get frustrated. Use your words.

I see fuck off wasn't clear enough for you, I guess that makes you dumber than an idiot.

No it wasn't clear. How does one actually fuck off? Have you ever thought about how dumb you sound?

Not as often as you, obviously. That is because, unlike you, I can make my point intelligently, or stupidly. You can't even make your point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nothing is wrong with me. We just disagree. I know thats an alien concept to you but try not to show how frustrated you are. The Constitution does encourage us to think about the concepts contained within it. Thats why its written down.

I never said to make hate speech illegal. I said it was destructive. Me talking about me being black has nothing to do with a white person so why would that be considered hate speech?

I don't advocate telling anyone they have to attend a wedding. However if they have a business used by the public they should and will give everyone the same standard of service regardless of the personal beliefs. If their personal beliefs are more important then they should not be licensed to serve the public as it consists of people that may cause a conflict.

I can see you are emotional about this so I wont address everything else in your post. Please take a chill pill.

If we just disagreed I wouldn't be asking what the FUCK is WRONG with you, I would be having a rational conversation based on reality. You are delusional, which makes my question regarding your medical problems legitimate. Until I can understand the root cause of your delusions there is no way I can figure out how to address your posts.

So, WHAT the FUCK is WRONG with you? Is it schizophrenia, and you have no access to the proper drugs? Is it traumatic brain injury, and should I just accept that you will forever more believe that people should be forced into slavery? Are you one of those asshole racists that believe that blacks should get the upper hand because you are too stupid to understand the basic tenet that everyone on the planet has a long string of ancestors that were slave owners?

WHAT the FUCK is WRONG with you?

Careful. Your temper is showing. Elvates your blood pressure when you get frustrated. It'll be ok. Just think about what you are saying and you wont sound so dumb.

You, like most children, are confusing passion with anger.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No such thing as free speech as I have said before. Everything has a cost. I don't support chaos. If you have no solution shut up and let brighter minds address the issues.

I am addressing the issue, and I value the input of everyone who has two functioning brain cells. I know that excludes you, but you have a major brain anomaly of some type, and I really do want to know what the fuck is wrong with you.

I said brighter minds. You dont appear to be that bright. Nothing is wrong with me. Whats wrong with you?

If you were really bright you would know how little you know.