The Value of Free Speech

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Chaos in society? Westboro Baptist Church and the Black Panthers both exist in the real world, and I haven't seen society collapse as a result. Did I sleep through the apocalypse again?

Yes chaos. People talking that have no solution but want to talk because they think they have a right to. You normally dont see a society collapse unless you happen to live at the end of it. Do you think you are some kind of god?

Wrong again, the reason I, and other people like me, don't have a solution is not because we believe we have a right, it is because we know it isn't a problem.

I know I have a right to write about, do, and film things that would cause you to run from the room. I guarantee you that, if I chose, I could have you, and all the other self righteous, pretentious, assholes writhing in disgust. There are things out there that you cannot imagine, and somebody is making money off of all of it. That is not chaos, despite your fake moral outrage.

As for seeing societies collapse, what makes you think I need to be a god to have witnessed it happening? There are people alive right now who saw society collapse, and people who helped to bring it about. You yourself have seen it on the nightly news, perhaps you weren't paying attention.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Freedom of speech is a unrealistic concept. Everything you say has a price attached to it whether you believe it or not. Some of the things people say have a huge hidden cost. To pretend hate speech is not destructive is a bit on the naive side of the ledger. If you cant prove your point and provide a solution to a problem you probably shouldn't be allowed to talk.

Oh shut it.
Hate speech? The term is so vague, it is impossible to define. The term is used as a bludgeon to silence points of view and to set up the possibility of litigation.
It's a horse shit concept.
Here's an idea Acquire a thicker skin.
As soon as you rabbit earned libs hear something you don't like, your first reaction is "hey shut that guy up"...You are so stupid.
The best way to marginalize an idiot who says something offensive is ignore him. Once you make charges you have encouraged the person because now you have given them a forum.
Here. If a guy on a street corner in downtown decides to start shouting some vile garbage, what do you think will happen if everyone simply ignore the guy? Is it not possible the guy will simply tire of no one paying attention to him and go away?
I do not understand the liberal mindset that commands them to react as though "we HAVE to do something about that. Silence HIM!!!"...
No...Wrong approach. You marginalize the person. You treat him like he's not even there.
It's the same as crying child who is cranky because he has not had a nap or is throwing a temper tantrum. You let the kid tire of crying. Soon, he will stop and fall off to sleep..Problem solved.

Hate speech is only difficult to define when your brain has a hard time comprehending what hate means. Sorry but practically everyone in the nation agrees with me on that. I dont think people should be shut up until they prove they have no premise and nothing positive to contribute to society. In your example a person on the street saying something like lets kill white people. I would want to know why and what that would accomplish. If he couldn't show me anything positive from that then he needs to be silenced. Hitler came to power with the apathy approach. No one silenced him and he took out a lot of people because of it. Your theory no one is going to listen to this person has been proved wrong many times.

Islam decrees that it is hate speech to point out that Mohammad showed symptoms of epilepsy, or that he was married to an underage girl.

So, once again, fuck off. If you have a problem with that I am sure I could dig up some hate speech to make my point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

The Supreme Court has been wrong before. In fact, you are one of the people that keep saying it is wrong about its rulings on free speech when it comes to political campaigns, so telling me that I disagree with SCOTUS is really stupid.

Which probably explains why Asclepias thanked you for this stupidity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Who else? The 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta. Going to blame that on Bush?

Thank you for this post and also to Daveman for his wikipedia link. It is good to call your own beliefs and convictions under question. No, I don't blame Bush for actions he isn't responsible for. I can only blame him for his own transgressions. Obviously, I have been overlooking the transgressions of my own party. I can no longer claim that Democrats hold any moral high ground over Republicans in this regard. For the record, I believe the whole country is a free speech zone where anyone should be able to voice their doubts and concerns. I cannot support those who do not believe this to be true.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

And guess what stupid. Do you really think those people will never have another baking business..Oh and no, you cannot prevail in a suit just because you heard words that you may find discriminatory. You must prove you have been harmed. That's the way it works. You are the plaintiff and YOU must PROVE your case.

This stupid suit is another example why our civil court system is in desperate need of revamping. Either get rid of the "contingency" where a plaintiff's attorney will offer services free of upfront charge and collect only if the plaintiff prevails. Or even better, 'loser pays'...

 

[Foxfyre]

When the federal government can call for an investigation into somebody or some organization because of an un-PC comment, and does so with impunity, we are ALL in danger of losing our First Amendment rights.

When a person or businesses can be attacked and hateful mobs descend upon them to destroy them and their livelihood only because they express an opinion that the PC crowd disagrees with, and the mobs do so with impunity, we are ALL in danger of losing our First Amendment rights.

When the government at any level can tap our phones or read our e-mails or gather whatever information they want about us for any purpose they want to use it for and does so with impunity, we are ALL in danger of losing our First Amendment rights.

When the government at any level commits unwarranted investigations into members of the free press, and does so with impunity, we are ALL in danger of losing our First Amendment rights.

And there is a reason that the First Amendment is the First Amendment. If it collapses, all the others will quickly follow.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
--Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4,1777

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips, (1811-1884)

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams

"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Those who seek to grovel at the feet of their idols more than they value their unalienable rights acknowledged and defended by the Cosntitution will soon be at the mercy of the same idols. And idols turned dicatator won't treat them well."--Foxfyre

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've yet to see any proof from LL or any of his friends on how the First Amendment remains out of danger. They sure claim to love freedom, but won't even support their claims. Surely if a liberal loved freedom, he wouldn't mind showing us how, now would he?

 

[Borillar]

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.

I made my mea culpa a couple pages ago. I was ignorant of my side doing the same thing as yours. That said, I can't recall you ever calling your side out on anything. Maybe you have. I don't read every thread. I only read ones that pique my interest. So, sorry if I have cast you in the wrong light.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, lets see, I will discuss the last post made by the last reasonable poster as of yet.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When the federal government can call for an investigation into somebody or some organization because of an un-PC comment, and does so with impunity, we are ALL in danger of losing our First Amendment rights.

When a person or businesses can be attacked and hateful mobs descend upon them to destroy them and their livelihood only because they express an opinion that the PC crowd disagrees with, and the mobs do so with impunity, we are ALL in danger of losing our First Amendment rights.

When the government at any level can tap our phones or read our e-mails or gather whatever information they want about us for any purpose they want to use it for and does so with impunity, we are ALL in danger of losing our First Amendment rights.

When the government at any level commits unwarranted investigations into members of the free press, and does so with impunity, we are ALL in danger of losing our First Amendment rights.

The liberals here are totally oblivious. They have no clue that their rights are being slowly stripped from them, all the meanwhile they will happily, and albeit blindly follow their masters off a steep cliff to their doom.

One key quote here is one made by Benjamin Franklin in February 1775:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here, Obama and his administration have given so many mixed messages over what should be and should not be free speech, it would make a body's head spin. Free speech is fine - unless - it criticzes blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, liberals, Democrats, Muslims, women, or is even the least bit politically incorrect.

Everybody remember the boondoggle at the U.N. last year when President Obama gave the impassioned speech in favor of free speech . . . UNLESS it hurt the feelings of Muslims? It didn't get a lot of national media play, but those of us who are underground news source hounds caught it.

The response from the Arab world was immediate:

Egypt’s president, Mohammad Morsi, vowed, “Insults against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, are not acceptable. We will not allow anyone to do this by word or by deed.”

Yemen’s president, Abdurabu Mansur Hadi, added, “These behaviors find people who defend them under the justification of the freedom of expression.… These people overlook the fact that there should be limits for the freedom of expression, especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.”

Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, stated, “Before I take up my speech, I want to express the strongest condemnation for acts of incitement of hate against the faith of billions of Muslims of the world and our beloved prophet, Muhammad.… The international community must not become silent observers and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression.”

Not content to be forgotten, the megalomaniac Julian Assange jumped into the fray. He spoke via video from his hideout in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he is seeking protection and “political asylum” from rape charges.

Assange accused Obama of defending free speech in the Arab world in an address to the United Nations on Tuesday while continuing to “persecute” WikiLeaks. In fact, Assange pointed to himself as evidence that Obama has “done more to criminalize free speech than any other U.S. president.
Free Speech Threatened at United Nations | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

And it was after that when there were all the scandals over IRS snooping, a Fox news reporter put under investigation, the AP reporters having their privacy violated, the Verizon et al scandal, etc. etc. etc.

Either our fearless leader believes in free speech or he does not.

His lips move. But we don't see much evidence that he endorses the concept.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here, Obama and his administration have given so many mixed messages over what should be and should not be free speech, it would make a body's head spin. Free speech is fine - unless - it criticizes blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, liberals, Democrats, Muslims, women, or is even the least bit politically incorrect.

Everybody remember the boondoggle at the U.N. last year when President Obama gave the impassioned speech in favor of free speech . . . UNLESS it hurt the feelings of Muslims? It didn't get a lot of national media play, but those of us who are underground news source hounds caught it.

The response from the Arab world was immediate:

Egypt’s president, Mohammad Morsi, vowed, “Insults against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, are not acceptable. We will not allow anyone to do this by word or by deed.”

Yemen’s president, Abdurabu Mansur Hadi, added, “These behaviors find people who defend them under the justification of the freedom of expression.… These people overlook the fact that there should be limits for the freedom of expression, especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.”

Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, stated, “Before I take up my speech, I want to express the strongest condemnation for acts of incitement of hate against the faith of billions of Muslims of the world and our beloved prophet, Muhammad.… The international community must not become silent observers and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression.”

Not content to be forgotten, the megalomaniac Julian Assange jumped into the fray. He spoke via video from his hideout in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he is seeking protection and “political asylum” from rape charges.

Assange accused Obama of defending free speech in the Arab world in an address to the United Nations on Tuesday while continuing to “persecute” WikiLeaks. In fact, Assange pointed to himself as evidence that Obama has “done more to criminalize free speech than any other U.S. president.
Free Speech Threatened at United Nations | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

And it was after that when there were all the scandals over IRS snooping, a Fox news reporter put under investigation, the AP reporters having their privacy violated, the Verizon et al scandal, etc. etc. etc.

Either our fearless leader believes in free speech or he does not.

His lips move. But we don't see much evidence that he endorses the concept.

So from what I have seen here since the creation of this thread, is that some Liberals believe it necessary to limit speech, just as these tyrants and dictators do. I see it all the time... schools telling children to remove or replace clothing that they deem "offensive" or dangerous for example:

Boy forced to remove 'Duck Dynasty' shirt

Student Charged After Refusing To Remove NRA Shirt

Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees | NBC Bay Area

Video: School tells student to remove flag from his bicycle « Hot Air

Fed Judge: Calif. School Was Right to Forbid Students? American Flag T-Shirts on Cinco de Mayo | TheBlaze.com

And then I am told that the First Amendment isn't in danger. Or another example would be when Tebowmania was sweeping schools everywhere, the craze being named after the NFL player and Florida Gators legend Tim Tebow, students were told to stop emulating him... or be suspended:

High school athletes suspended for Tebowing in the halls

And then there is the instance in Hardin County, Texas, where the Kountze Independent School District tried to stop cheerleaders at Kountze High School from displaying Christian themed run through banners with Bible verses on them during football games, such as this one:

Judge Rules That Kountze High School Cheerleaders Can Display Banners with Bible Verses at Football Games

But I am told, "The First Amendment is not in danger." Well then, kids can't wear what they want to school anymore. There goes free expression. Kids can't openly practice their faith at school. There goes freedom of religion. So anyone who says the first amendment is safe is foolish. It is being constantly assaulted each and every day, by far left liberals.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion, the single one thing that will crash the First Amendment AND the Constitution will be political correctness. And I often suspect that those who WANT to crash the Constitution know that which is one reason they are pushing PC so diligently. I hope I'm wrong. But because I am not convinced that I am, it is why I continue to speak out so strongly against PC and the evil effect it has on our liberties.

 

[daveman]

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?

Who else? The 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta. Going to blame that on Bush?

Thank you for this post and also to Daveman for his wikipedia link. It is good to call your own beliefs and convictions under question. No, I don't blame Bush for actions he isn't responsible for. I can only blame him for his own transgressions. Obviously, I have been overlooking the transgressions of my own party. I can no longer claim that Democrats hold any moral high ground over Republicans in this regard. For the record, I believe the whole country is a free speech zone where anyone should be able to voice their doubts and concerns. I cannot support those who do not believe this to be true.

Rep-worthy. Well done.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here, Obama and his administration have given so many mixed messages over what should be and should not be free speech, it would make a body's head spin. Free speech is fine - unless - it criticzes blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, liberals, Democrats, Muslims, women, or is even the least bit politically incorrect.

Everybody remember the boondoggle at the U.N. last year when President Obama gave the impassioned speech in favor of free speech . . . UNLESS it hurt the feelings of Muslims? It didn't get a lot of national media play, but those of us who are underground news source hounds caught it.

The response from the Arab world was immediate:

Egypt’s president, Mohammad Morsi, vowed, “Insults against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, are not acceptable. We will not allow anyone to do this by word or by deed.”

Yemen’s president, Abdurabu Mansur Hadi, added, “These behaviors find people who defend them under the justification of the freedom of expression.… These people overlook the fact that there should be limits for the freedom of expression, especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.”

Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, stated, “Before I take up my speech, I want to express the strongest condemnation for acts of incitement of hate against the faith of billions of Muslims of the world and our beloved prophet, Muhammad.… The international community must not become silent observers and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression.”

Not content to be forgotten, the megalomaniac Julian Assange jumped into the fray. He spoke via video from his hideout in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he is seeking protection and “political asylum” from rape charges.

Assange accused Obama of defending free speech in the Arab world in an address to the United Nations on Tuesday while continuing to “persecute” WikiLeaks. In fact, Assange pointed to himself as evidence that Obama has “done more to criminalize free speech than any other U.S. president.
Free Speech Threatened at United Nations | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

And it was after that when there were all the scandals over IRS snooping, a Fox news reporter put under investigation, the AP reporters having their privacy violated, the Verizon et al scandal, etc. etc. etc.

Either our fearless leader believes in free speech or he does not.

His lips move. But we don't see much evidence that he endorses the concept.

Can you please cite the transcript of the section of the speech that you are referring to? I am not familiar with it. Thanks.

 

[LoneLaugher]

In my opinion, the single one thing that will crash the First Amendment AND the Constitution will be political correctness. And I often suspect that those who WANT to crash the Constitution know that which is one reason they are pushing PC so diligently. I hope I'm wrong. But because I am not convinced that I am, it is why I continue to speak out so strongly against PC and the evil effect it has on our liberties.

I would love for you to elaborate on how this will happen and at whose hands.

 

[daveman]

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.

I made my mea culpa a couple pages ago. I was ignorant of my side doing the same thing as yours.

I just now saw that, and repped you for it.

That said, I can't recall you ever calling your side out on anything. Maybe you have. I don't read every thread. I only read ones that pique my interest. So, sorry if I have cast you in the wrong light.

I probably don't do it as much as I need to, but I have done it. I've been quite vocal against the conservative racists here, calling them out and negging them for it. There's a lot of that in this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-relations-racism/248058-black-women-are-less-attractive.html

 

[thereisnospoon]

In my opinion, the single one thing that will crash the First Amendment AND the Constitution will be political correctness. And I often suspect that those who WANT to crash the Constitution know that which is one reason they are pushing PC so diligently. I hope I'm wrong. But because I am not convinced that I am, it is why I continue to speak out so strongly against PC and the evil effect it has on our liberties.

I would love for you to elaborate on how this will happen and at whose hands.

You can attempt to run interference. You can continue to deny without any substance.
It does not change the facts. The incidents posted by templar are REAL...
It is your right to live in denial.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I made my mea culpa a couple pages ago. I was ignorant of my side doing the same thing as yours.

I just now saw that, and repped you for it.

That said, I can't recall you ever calling your side out on anything. Maybe you have. I don't read every thread. I only read ones that pique my interest. So, sorry if I have cast you in the wrong light.

I probably don't do it as much as I need to, but I have done it. I've been quite vocal against the conservative racists here, calling them out and negging them for it. There's a lot of that in this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-relations-racism/248058-black-women-are-less-attractive.html

There are quite a few members, on both sides of the political spectrum, who are capable of seeing things as they really are rather than viewing every single thing through a partisan or ideological prism. I think you are one of those members. And I'm happy to get acquainted with Borillar, who probably tilts more left than right, but appears to be another one of those members.

I am also grateful to some Congressional Democrats who I have been listening to lately who also agree that ACA should be put back on the shelf until the problems can be worked out, or else they need to just start over and come up with something less destructive.

Maybe this time they all--Democrat and Republican--will actually read the bill before they vote on it.

 

[Mac1958]

In my opinion, the single one thing that will crash the First Amendment AND the Constitution will be political correctness. And I often suspect that those who WANT to crash the Constitution know that which is one reason they are pushing PC so diligently. I hope I'm wrong. But because I am not convinced that I am, it is why I continue to speak out so strongly against PC and the evil effect it has on our liberties.

Seconded. My guess is that they push PC for nothing more than political gain, but I admit to being open to the possibility that there's more to it.

Those who push PC the most are the same as those who push a far more authoritarian, centralized government. So, while the thought of living under a far more authoritarian government may seem terrible to you and I, they're perfectly comfortable with the thought of being controlled like that. Literally.

Therefore it's not exactly a wild leap to imagine how these people would be quite happy seeing that centralized government control our very words under the guise of "keeping the peace" or "maintaining order" or whatever the handy excuse might be -- we could check any number of countries in the Middle East for the terminology to use.

And obviously, these people would be more than happy reporting those who break the rules by saying what is "unacceptable to the People". They're already doing it.

The First Amendment would have to go, and with it the Constitution. You know, that shitty document written by rich, white slaveholders.

.