The Value of Free Speech

[Quantum Windbag]

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'.

Have you looked in a mirror lately?

Here is a simple truth, there are people that want to take away free speech, and they are in this country. Some of them are quite open about it. If you deny that you are either so stupid you need help getting dressed, are willfully ignoring the facts, or are part of the group that wants to restrict speech and decided the best way for you to make a difference is denying that anyone wants to do it.

Brandon G. Withrow: Why Blasphemy Laws Are Not About Religion

You don't have to believe that there is a conspiracy afoot to take away people's rights to admit that there are people that, for whatever reason, want to tell people they can't say something. Even the "Just because you can doesn't mean you should" crowd is wrong here, the one thing everyone should support is the ability of anyone to criticize anything. If we give ourselves the power to tell people they shouldn't insult a religion, government, group, or person because of how it makes people feel, or act, we are actually giving the extremist who are willing to use violence the power to control society.

That will be chaos. Your choice.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

I made the mistake of getting into it with a shill. LoneLaugher is either a sock or a paid shill, in all the time I've known him, he has never tried to foster debate or the exchange of ideas. Your best bet is to ignore him, consider it chemotherapy for the brain.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Seems to me that most rw's flip their lid and start calling names instead of debating. The first words out of keyboard is idiot or moron when confronted with the truth.

 

[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'.

Have you looked in a mirror lately?

Here is a simple truth, there are people that want to take away free speech, and they are in this country. Some of them are quite open about it. If you deny that you are either so stupid you need help getting dressed, are willfully ignoring the facts, or are part of the group that wants to restrict speech and decided the best way for you to make a difference is denying that anyone wants to do it.

Brandon G. Withrow: Why Blasphemy Laws Are Not About Religion

You don't have to believe that there is a conspiracy afoot to take away people's rights to admit that there are people that, for whatever reason, want to tell people they can't say something. Even the "Just because you can doesn't mean you should" crowd is wrong here, the one thing everyone should support is the ability of anyone to criticize anything. If we give ourselves the power to tell people they shouldn't insult a religion, government, group, or person because of how it makes people feel, or act, we are actually giving the extremist who are willing to use violence the power to control society.

That will be chaos. Your choice.

Who are these people? They seem dangerous. Got some names?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

When the President of the United States goes to the UN and gives a speech where he calls a video an "Insult to America" because it offended a religion that is the government, your government, going exactly what you just said doesn't happen. As I recall, you defended that. (I might be wrong, but I will not apologize on the off chance I am. If you didn't defend it, and feel it necessary, feel free to prove it. If you want to demand an apology without proof, fuck off.)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.
​

Another example. Does LL categorically condemn the actions of the government when it treats people differently based on their speech, or does he pretend it did not happen in order to claim that it never happens?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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!

Yes, you are stupid, but you can learn.

By the way, why are public schools allowed to impose speech codes if you categorically deny the ability of government, in any form, to restrict speech? Why do you support requiring a permit if someone holds a protest if you oppose all government restrictions on speech?

Should I go on, or do you want to admit that they manipulated you so thoroughly that you are willing to deny they exist?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Then you actually support government restrictions on speech, and the government punishing people because of their beliefs, even though you say you don't. That makes you part of the problem, which is why I will call you out every time you open your sewer hole.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Seems to me that most rw's flip their lid and start calling names instead of debating. The first words out of keyboard is idiot or moron when confronted with the truth.

That's after the truth has already been presented by a "rw'er" and the liberal ignores it. People only have so much patience.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

When the President of the United States goes to the UN and gives a speech where he calls a video an "Insult to America" because it offended a religion that is the government, your government, going exactly what you just said doesn't happen. As I recall, you defended that. (I might be wrong, but I will not apologize on the off chance I am. If you didn't defend it, and feel it necessary, feel free to prove it. If you want to demand an apology without proof, fuck off.)

That was a great statement there....the part in parenthesis. Really something. It really puts your keen sense of fair play on display. Great job.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

What I think is that you suddenly became very sensitive to potentially losing your right to free speech after November, 2008. I think your fears are partisan in nature.

And....as I cannot forget that you have stated that you would support Sarah Palin as the leader of this nation, I have difficulty taking you seriously. I know...different topic....but it stays with you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It is showing clear evidence that there was an organized, top down, conspiracy at the IRS to target groups based on the political beliefs. Funny thing, Obama doesn't seem to care any more than you do. I expected that though, he already proved he is willing to use the government to attack speech.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why should I trust you to protect me from a problem you deny exists?

 

[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.

Why should I trust you to protect me from a problem you deny exists?

Well... I prefer that you'd stand WITH me should our right to free speech ever be threatened. You know.....really threatened.....not the pretendy kind.

We'll probably need all the help we can get should that ever happen.

What do you say? Stand with me?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Seems to me that most rw's flip their lid and start calling names instead of debating. The first words out of keyboard is idiot or moron when confronted with the truth.

It seems t me that most people do that, and then whinge about it. If you weren't part of the problem, and a racist asshole, maybe everyone wouldn't be calling you names.

 

[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.

It is showing clear evidence that there was an organized, top down, conspiracy at the IRS to target groups based on the political beliefs. Funny thing, Obama doesn't seem to care any more than you do. I expected that though, he already proved he is willing to use the government to attack speech.

No it is not. It is an effort by a nutter Congressman to take an Erik Erikson claim and turn it into an oversight committee hearing.

Clear evidence? Really? You think that had clear evidence? Man.......that is sad.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

When the President of the United States goes to the UN and gives a speech where he calls a video an "Insult to America" because it offended a religion that is the government, your government, going exactly what you just said doesn't happen. As I recall, you defended that. (I might be wrong, but I will not apologize on the off chance I am. If you didn't defend it, and feel it necessary, feel free to prove it. If you want to demand an apology without proof, fuck off.)

That was a great statement there....the part in parenthesis. Really something. It really puts your keen sense of fair play on display. Great job.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

What I think is that you suddenly became very sensitive to potentially losing your right to free speech after November, 2008. I think your fears are partisan in nature.

And....as I cannot forget that you have stated that you would support Sarah Palin as the leader of this nation, I have difficulty taking you seriously. I know...different topic....but it stays with you.

If I am wrong, prove it, and I will apologize. If, on the other hand, you just want to act insulted and demand an apology, fuck off. How is that not fair? Is the real problem here that I called you out, and then short circuited your tactics before you could employ them?

It doesn't matter if you would support Palin, what matters is if you will state that you do not support Obama when he is wrong.

By the way, as I have said countless times, I am not a Republican, which explains why your support of a theoretical President Palin doesn't impress me. I would be just as hard on her as I am Obama.

 

[Asclepias]

"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.

Seems to me that most rw's flip their lid and start calling names instead of debating. The first words out of keyboard is idiot or moron when confronted with the truth.

It seems t me that most people do that, and then whinge about it. If you weren't part of the problem, and a racist asshole, maybe everyone wouldn't be calling you names.

Thats pretty much a lie. I know I don't do that. You may not agree with what I say but I dont call people out of their names just because I dont agree. You will get called a name if I'm in the mood and you called me one first. You are part of the problem and you also say some racist things. Stop thinking you have all the answers and do no wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why should I trust you to protect me from a problem you deny exists?

Well... I prefer that you'd stand WITH me should our right to free speech ever be threatened. You know.....really threatened.....not the pretendy kind.

We'll probably need all the help we can get should that ever happen.

What do you say? Stand with me?

If you really want to protect our rights feel free to stand with me. If, on the other hand, you want to pretend that there is no problem, get the fuck out of the way. Standing with you is standing with the people who want to take away our rights, and I do not stand there.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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 grandstander's website. There must have been some activity since.

It is showing clear evidence that there was an organized, top down, conspiracy at the IRS to target groups based on the political beliefs. Funny thing, Obama doesn't seem to care any more than you do. I expected that though, he already proved he is willing to use the government to attack speech.

No it is not. It is an effort by a nutter Congressman to take an Erik Erikson claim and turn it into an oversight committee hearing.

Clear evidence? Really? You think that had clear evidence? Man.......that is sad.

Quite simple. When you have Lois Lerner claiming the 5th in her congressional hearing, you know it was organized from the top down. Now if it were Rachel Maddow or some other Liberal personality touting this evidence you reject so soundly, would you accept it or acknowledge it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It is showing clear evidence that there was an organized, top down, conspiracy at the IRS to target groups based on the political beliefs. Funny thing, Obama doesn't seem to care any more than you do. I expected that though, he already proved he is willing to use the government to attack speech.

No it is not. It is an effort by a nutter Congressman to take an Erik Erikson claim and turn it into an oversight committee hearing.

Clear evidence? Really? You think that had clear evidence? Man.......that is sad.

No that is what the IRS IG has said. But feel free to lump them in with the nutter congresscritters.