The Value of Free Speech

[LoneLaugher]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh! We're on a roll now folks! Will someone please tell me who "they" are? Because I sure want to be able to recognize em' when's I sees em'.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.

.

Damn. Why am I always out of rep when I really need it?

While I have no problem with general rules of acceptable language in schools, the work place, on public television and radio etc., short of inciting a riot, libel, and slander, I have a huge problem with any form of government suppression of speech. I believe history is a great teacher that such is among the first steps that totalitarian governments take to control the people totally.

Standards of reasonably acceptable language in certain public venues respect a culture in which people can expect to not be exposed to vulgarity or excessive crudity without their consent. But there is a huge difference between acceptable language in polite company and in suppression of thought and opinion, even that considered mysogynistic or racist. Most especially when it is only one narrow group who dictates what is racist, mysogynistic, etc.

There is a huge difference between me instructing my employees that I will not tolerate blatant insensitivity directed at each other or our clients and the government telling me that I must hold such standards. There is a huge difference between my organization choosing a particular point of view to emphasize and requiring those within the organization to respect that point of view and the government shutting down an organization for no other reason than the opinions it emphasizes..

There is a huge difference between me choosing not to do business with somebody I consider to be insensitive to people and in organizing a mob action to destroy such a person and/or his/her livelihood. My choice of who to do business with is my business. For me to impose my will to think, believe, or use specific language on another is not only evil, it is dangerous.

For the government to do so much more so.

And we are dangerously close to having political correctness, enforced by the government and a government who will punish us if we don't hold specific points of view now. If we don't push back we could lose our First Amendment rights.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

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.

.

Damn. Why am I always out of rep when I really need it?

While I have no problem with general rules of acceptable language in schools, the work place, on public television and radio etc., short of inciting a riot, libel, and slander, I have a huge problem with any form of government suppression of speech. I believe history is a great teacher that such is among the first steps that totalitarian governments take to control the people totally.

Standards of reasonably acceptable language in certain public venues respect a culture in which people can expect to not be exposed to vulgarity or excessive crudity without their consent. But there is a huge difference between acceptable language in polite company and in suppression of thought and opinion, even that considered mysogynistic or racist. Most especially when it is only one narrow group who dictates what is racist, mysogynistic, etc.

There is a huge difference between me instructing my employees that I will not tolerate blatant insensitivity directed at each other or our clients and the government telling me that I must hold such standards. There is a huge difference between my organization choosing a particular point of view to emphasize and requiring those within the organization to respect that point of view and the government shutting down an organization for no other reason than the opinions it emphasizes..

There is a huge difference between me choosing not to do business with somebody I consider to be insensitive to people and in organizing a mob action to destroy such a person and/or his/her livelihood. My choice of who to do business with is my business. For me to impose my will to think, believe, or use specific language on another is not only evil, it is dangerous.

For the government to do so much more so.

And we are dangerously close to having political correctness, enforced by the government and a government who will punish us if we don't hold specific points of view now. If we don't push back we could lose our First Amendment rights.

I have a problem with any form of government suppression of speech. We are in total agreement. Isn't that nice!

I don't agree with you on the "rules of acceptance" in schools and radio etc. if they are mandated by the government. I believe that Chris Wallace should be able to tell someone like Ted Cruz that he is full of shit on TV if he wants to. You can buy earmuffs if you need them.

No narrow group dictates what is acceptable speech. And ALL of the examples that you proffer r to demonstrate the evils of PC are perpetrated by the private sector. There have been no legal ramifications imposed by the government on any of the "victims" of mob action that you have expressed concern over.

The government is not doing any such thing. There are laws on the books. They protect us all against such government overreach. If this has been threatened, can you cite an example where the government has been behind any mob action to intimidate anyone for something they think or even say? Show me some PC imposed by the government, please.

 

[daveman]

I have a problem with any form of government suppression of speech. We are in total agreement. Isn't that nice!

I don't agree with you on the "rules of acceptance" in schools and radio etc. if they are mandated by the government. I believe that Chris Wallace should be able to tell someone like Ted Cruz that he is full of shit on TV if he wants to. You can buy earmuffs if you need them.

No narrow group dictates what is acceptable speech. And ALL of the examples that you proffer r to demonstrate the evils of PC are perpetrated by the private sector. There have been no legal ramifications imposed by the government on any of the "victims" of mob action that you have expressed concern over.

The government is not doing any such thing. There are laws on the books. They protect us all against such government overreach. If this has been threatened, can you cite an example where the government has been behind any mob action to intimidate anyone for something they think or even say? Show me some PC imposed by the government, please.

Sure.

Stockman asks for probe of alleged audits of citizens reported to White House email address | Congressman Steve Stockman

ObamaCare critics report IRS harassment after being reported to [email protected]
WASHINGTON – Congressman Steve Stockman Tuesday asked two House chairmen to investigate allegations individuals reported to a White House email address for criticizing Obama’s health care reforms were targeted with Internal Revenue Service audits.

During the debate over adopting ObamaCare the White House encouraged liberal activists to report Obama’s critics to a “[email protected]” email address. At least one of those reported tells RedState.com editor Erick Erickson he was then targeted with audits. “Remember that website Obama set up to report neighbors who opposed Obamacare? A friend reported himself and got audited shortly thereafter,” Erickson tweeted May 13.

“We need to know if there were any others. This certainly fits the rapidly-expanding pattern of people who criticize Obama suddenly finding themselves targeted by the IRS,” said Stockman. “Obama’s IRS scandal is spreading like a cancer.”

“Government reforms adopted after Watergate prohibit the White House from coordinating with the IRS to target citizens. We know White House critics were targeted by the IRS. We know the White House maintained an active enemies list through [email protected]. Investigators must find out how targets were picked and what, if any, White House personnel knew about it,” said Stockman.
​

 

[Mac1958]

There is a huge difference between me instructing my employees that I will not tolerate blatant insensitivity directed at each other or our clients and the government telling me that I must hold such standards. There is a huge difference between my organization choosing a particular point of view to emphasize and requiring those within the organization to respect that point of view and the government shutting down an organization for no other reason than the opinions it emphasizes..

There is a huge difference between me choosing not to do business with somebody I consider to be insensitive to people and in organizing a mob action to destroy such a person and/or his/her livelihood. My choice of who to do business with is my business. For me to impose my will to think, believe, or use specific language on another is not only evil, it is dangerous.

For the government to do so much more so.

Precisely. And this is the point that they will choose to ignore. For them, virtually every problem must be addressed by the government, because these people are so comfortable with the idea of authoritarianism. The notion of people dealing with this themselves, the notion that there are significant unintended consequences of authoritarianism, will not even enter their thought process.

So, and here's the bottom line: How do they get there from here? They don't start with the government, they start with the culture. The government isn't clamping down on the First Amendment across the board. But at some point, the culture will dictate it, because enough of the culture will be as comfortable with authoritarianism as the Left already is.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There's all that talk about "them" again. Damn. they sure are evil fuckers....and stupid too....since they are so easily manipulated by them!

 

[daveman]

There's all that talk about "them" again. Damn. they sure are evil fuckers....and stupid too....since they are so easily manipulated by them!

Pssst! You deliberately ignored Post #264.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There's all that talk about "them" again. Damn. they sure are evil fuckers....and stupid too....since they are so easily manipulated by them!

Pssst! You deliberately ignored Post #264.

Yes.....because it is a story about another nutter probe fishing for some wrongdoing by the IRS. Post it when you have some fucking solid info...maybe an arrest and a conviction or something.

Geez......this is just speculation...and you are trying to use it as proof. Come on.....don't bore me.

 

[LoneLaugher]

By the way...that was in May. What happened to the probe? That is 5 months ago, bro. And you are still citing the original announcement on that grahdstander's website. There must have been some activity since.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is a huge difference between me instructing my employees that I will not tolerate blatant insensitivity directed at each other or our clients and the government telling me that I must hold such standards. There is a huge difference between my organization choosing a particular point of view to emphasize and requiring those within the organization to respect that point of view and the government shutting down an organization for no other reason than the opinions it emphasizes..

There is a huge difference between me choosing not to do business with somebody I consider to be insensitive to people and in organizing a mob action to destroy such a person and/or his/her livelihood. My choice of who to do business with is my business. For me to impose my will to think, believe, or use specific language on another is not only evil, it is dangerous.

For the government to do so much more so.

Precisely. And this is the point that they will choose to ignore. For them, virtually every problem must be addressed by the government, because these people are so comfortable with the idea of authoritarianism. The notion of people dealing with this themselves, the notion that there are significant unintended consequences of authoritarianism, will not even enter their thought process.

So, and here's the bottom line: How do they get there from here? They don't start with the government, they start with the culture. The government isn't clamping down on the First Amendment across the board. But at some point, the culture will dictate it, because enough of the culture will be as comfortable with authoritarianism as the Left already is.
.

I see it in a slightly difference light. It's like water slowly but methodically undercutting a foundation. We get used to the ripples, complacent that it is of little consequence, desensitized to any sense of impropriety or danger, comfortable with the very gradual encroachment upon our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities. The phenomenon is further distorted by those who insist everything is fine, there is no problem, we're making it all up, we shouldn't be in the least concerned. They characterize us as winguts or extremists or government haters or worse if we even bring up the subject. And then one day we realize that almost without noticing it was happening, we find ourselves without those liberties, choices, options, and opportunities. We wonder what happened? But it is too late.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is a huge difference between me instructing my employees that I will not tolerate blatant insensitivity directed at each other or our clients and the government telling me that I must hold such standards. There is a huge difference between my organization choosing a particular point of view to emphasize and requiring those within the organization to respect that point of view and the government shutting down an organization for no other reason than the opinions it emphasizes..

There is a huge difference between me choosing not to do business with somebody I consider to be insensitive to people and in organizing a mob action to destroy such a person and/or his/her livelihood. My choice of who to do business with is my business. For me to impose my will to think, believe, or use specific language on another is not only evil, it is dangerous.

For the government to do so much more so.

Precisely. And this is the point that they will choose to ignore. For them, virtually every problem must be addressed by the government, because these people are so comfortable with the idea of authoritarianism. The notion of people dealing with this themselves, the notion that there are significant unintended consequences of authoritarianism, will not even enter their thought process.

So, and here's the bottom line: How do they get there from here? They don't start with the government, they start with the culture. The government isn't clamping down on the First Amendment across the board. But at some point, the culture will dictate it, because enough of the culture will be as comfortable with authoritarianism as the Left already is.
.

I see it in a slightly difference light. It's like water slowly but methodically undercutting a foundation. We get used to the ripples, complacent that it is of little consequence, desensitized to any sense of impropriety or danger, comfortable with the very gradual encroachment upon our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities. The phenomenon is further distorted by those who insist everything is fine, there is no problem, we're making it all up, we shouldn't be in the least concerned. They characterize us as winguts or extremists or government haters or worse if we even bring up the subject. And then one day we realize that almost without noticing it was happening, we find ourselves without those liberties, choices, options, and opportunities. We wonder what happened? But it is too late.

I keep telling you guys not to worry. Us liberals will protect those rights that you think are being "slowly but methodically" stripped. We were there to establish them....we won;t leave you hanging.

 

[Steven_R]

So are you pacing yourselves? I'm pretty sure we're losing liberties everytime I get my balls felt up so I can get on an airplane and find out there is just one more bureaucratic hoop I need to jump through to exercise a fundamental human right specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

 

[Mac1958]

So are you pacing yourselves? I'm pretty sure we're losing liberties everytime I get my balls felt up so I can get on an airplane and find out there is just one more bureaucratic hoop I need to jump through to exercise a fundamental human right specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

Just for the record, those of us who are 50 and over will pay extra for the ticket if we can get our balls felt up at the airport.

Just sayin'.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Precisely. And this is the point that they will choose to ignore. For them, virtually every problem must be addressed by the government, because these people are so comfortable with the idea of authoritarianism. The notion of people dealing with this themselves, the notion that there are significant unintended consequences of authoritarianism, will not even enter their thought process.

So, and here's the bottom line: How do they get there from here? They don't start with the government, they start with the culture. The government isn't clamping down on the First Amendment across the board. But at some point, the culture will dictate it, because enough of the culture will be as comfortable with authoritarianism as the Left already is.
.

I see it in a slightly difference light. It's like water slowly but methodically undercutting a foundation. We get used to the ripples, complacent that it is of little consequence, desensitized to any sense of impropriety or danger, comfortable with the very gradual encroachment upon our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities. The phenomenon is further distorted by those who insist everything is fine, there is no problem, we're making it all up, we shouldn't be in the least concerned. They characterize us as winguts or extremists or government haters or worse if we even bring up the subject. And then one day we realize that almost without noticing it was happening, we find ourselves without those liberties, choices, options, and opportunities. We wonder what happened? But it is too late.

I keep telling you guys not to worry. Us liberals will protect those rights that you think are being "slowly but methodically" stripped. We were there to establish them....we won;t leave you hanging.

Such arrogance. Just what exactly are you doing to protect my rights? Can you give a few examples? And on a side note, how may "rights" have you "established"?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I see it in a slightly difference light. It's like water slowly but methodically undercutting a foundation. We get used to the ripples, complacent that it is of little consequence, desensitized to any sense of impropriety or danger, comfortable with the very gradual encroachment upon our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities. The phenomenon is further distorted by those who insist everything is fine, there is no problem, we're making it all up, we shouldn't be in the least concerned. They characterize us as winguts or extremists or government haters or worse if we even bring up the subject. And then one day we realize that almost without noticing it was happening, we find ourselves without those liberties, choices, options, and opportunities. We wonder what happened? But it is too late.

I keep telling you guys not to worry. Us liberals will protect those rights that you think are being "slowly but methodically" stripped. We were there to establish them....we won;t leave you hanging.

Such arrogance. Just what exactly are you doing to protect my rights? Can you give a few examples? And on a side note, how may "rights" have you "established"?

Psssssst I think your ignore feature is malfunctioning.

I am surprised that you showed your face today after that great thread that you started this morning. You sure are a critical thinker, ain't ya?

It is not arrogance. I am simply informing you that liberals are all about our freedoms and our liberty. We will take the steps necessary to protect them if they are threatened.

Were you out job hunting or were you doing cosplay all day?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I keep telling you guys not to worry. Us liberals will protect those rights that you think are being "slowly but methodically" stripped. We were there to establish them....we won;t leave you hanging.

Such arrogance. Just what exactly are you doing to protect my rights? Can you give a few examples? And on a side note, how may "rights" have you "established"?

Psssssst I think your ignore feature is malfunctioning.

I am surprised that you showed your face today after that great thread that you started this morning. You sure are a critical thinker, ain't ya?

It is not arrogance. I am simply informing you that liberals are all about our freedoms and our liberty. We will take the steps necessary to protect them if they are threatened.

Were you out job hunting or were you doing cosplay all day?

Answer the question. The only thing I'm ignoring are your childish taunts. So far you've ignored every counterargument other people on this thread have posted. What you are doing now is deflecting. Give examples and hard evidence to prove you are "protecting my rights" or "establishing" any. Would you care to debate me civilly? If not, my ignore function will suddenly stop malfunctioning.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You are not worthy of more than a fleeting thought. I have told you that many times. If you want to know what I think about things, you will have to read my responses to some intelligent people. Sorry.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are not worthy of more than a fleeting thought. I have told you that many times. If you want to know what I think about things, you will have to read my responses to some intelligent people. Sorry.

Wow. So you can't. Well then. I would amount that to laziness. If you were truly intelligent yourself, you would answer the question. So far all you've done is insult me. I've read all of your responses on this thread, none of them answer my question. Oh well, you had the chance to prove your point.

Ipso Facto Presto Chango!

Ignore function operational.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

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.

.

Damn. Why am I always out of rep when I really need it?

While I have no problem with general rules of acceptable language in schools, the work place, on public television and radio etc., short of inciting a riot, libel, and slander, I have a huge problem with any form of government suppression of speech. I believe history is a great teacher that such is among the first steps that totalitarian governments take to control the people totally.

Standards of reasonably acceptable language in certain public venues respect a culture in which people can expect to not be exposed to vulgarity or excessive crudity without their consent. But there is a huge difference between acceptable language in polite company and in suppression of thought and opinion, even that considered mysogynistic or racist. Most especially when it is only one narrow group who dictates what is racist, mysogynistic, etc.

There is a huge difference between me instructing my employees that I will not tolerate blatant insensitivity directed at each other or our clients and the government telling me that I must hold such standards. There is a huge difference between my organization choosing a particular point of view to emphasize and requiring those within the organization to respect that point of view and the government shutting down an organization for no other reason than the opinions it emphasizes..

There is a huge difference between me choosing not to do business with somebody I consider to be insensitive to people and in organizing a mob action to destroy such a person and/or his/her livelihood. My choice of who to do business with is my business. For me to impose my will to think, believe, or use specific language on another is not only evil, it is dangerous.

For the government to do so much more so.

And we are dangerously close to having political correctness, enforced by the government and a government who will punish us if we don't hold specific points of view now. If we don't push back we could lose our First Amendment rights.

I have a problem with any form of government suppression of speech. We are in total agreement. Isn't that nice!

I don't agree with you on the "rules of acceptance" in schools and radio etc. if they are mandated by the government. I believe that Chris Wallace should be able to tell someone like Ted Cruz that he is full of shit on TV if he wants to. You can buy earmuffs if you need them.

No narrow group dictates what is acceptable speech. And ALL of the examples that you proffer r to demonstrate the evils of PC are perpetrated by the private sector. There have been no legal ramifications imposed by the government on any of the "victims" of mob action that you have expressed concern over.

The government is not doing any such thing. There are laws on the books. They protect us all against such government overreach. If this has been threatened, can you cite an example where the government has been behind any mob action to intimidate anyone for something they think or even say? Show me some PC imposed by the government, please.

No you don't...A debate with a typical liberal has one of two outcomes.
One, the liberal will attempt to change the subject matter of the discussion.
Failing that, number two, the liberal will resort to either making accusations of wrongdoing or outright impugning of their opponent.
PC is not usually imposed by government. It is imposed by the left. Those on the left then petition government or in the case of speech codes seen on college campuses, the school administration. Either way, the left will engage some kind of controlling authority to further their agenda.
Too often. those with conservative points of view are either uninvited from speaking at a college or other public forum....Or, they are shouted down and not allowed to speak.
It happens all the time. There are mountains of examples.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I keep telling you guys not to worry. Us liberals will protect those rights that you think are being "slowly but methodically" stripped. We were there to establish them....we won;t leave you hanging.

Such arrogance. Just what exactly are you doing to protect my rights? Can you give a few examples? And on a side note, how may "rights" have you "established"?

Psssssst I think your ignore feature is malfunctioning.

I am surprised that you showed your face today after that great thread that you started this morning. You sure are a critical thinker, ain't ya?

It is not arrogance. I am simply informing you that liberals are all about our freedoms and our liberty. We will take the steps necessary to protect them if they are threatened.

Were you out job hunting or were you doing cosplay all day?

"Our" freedoms..."OUR" liberty...
Yes....for liberals only.
Your steps are well documented. Impugning, making baseless accusations, shouting down..Anything to stop debate or the exchange of ideas.