The Value of Free Speech

[Foxfyre]

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



China Intensifies Social-Media Crackdown - WSJ.com

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

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

They think their free speech entitles them to protection against criticism of what they say.

No. We think free speech entitles us to protection against government harrassment or reprisal and threats of violence against us, our property, and mob attacks on our livelihood for no other reason than we hold opinions not shared by others.

Nobody's opinion entitles them to be free of criticsm. In fact criticism is a form of recognized and protected free speech. But intentionally punishing or destroying somebody because they exercise their right to free speech is wrong. And it is evil.

 

[Asclepias]

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

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

They think their free speech entitles them to protection against criticism of what they say.

No. We think free speech entitles us to protection against government harrassment or reprisal and threats of violence against us, our property, and mob attacks on our livelihood for no other reason than we hold opinions not shared by others.

Nobody's opinion entitles them to be free of criticsm. In fact criticism is a form of recognized and protected free speech. But intentionally punishing or destroying somebody because they exercise their right to free speech is wrong. And it is evil.

Anyone threatening violence towards another person or their property because of their opinion are nut cases. Their career or livelihood is fair game if it serves the public and the public doesn't appreciate the opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

They think their free speech entitles them to protection against criticism of what they say.

No. We think free speech entitles us to protection against government harrassment or reprisal and threats of violence against us, our property, and mob attacks on our livelihood for no other reason than we hold opinions not shared by others.

Nobody's opinion entitles them to be free of criticsm. In fact criticism is a form of recognized and protected free speech. But intentionally punishing or destroying somebody because they exercise their right to free speech is wrong. And it is evil.

Anyone threatening violence towards another person or their property because of their opinion are nut cases. Their career or livelihood is fair game if it serves the public and the public doesn't appreciate the opinion.

And there you have it folks. The declaration of the death of the First Amendment and free speech down the toilet. Spelled out in unmistakable terms by Asclepias, the USMB poster boy for kill the First Amendment now.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

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

They think their free speech entitles them to protection against criticism of what they say.

No. We think free speech entitles us to protection against government harrassment or reprisal and threats of violence against us, our property, and mob attacks on our livelihood for no other reason than we hold opinions not shared by others.

Nobody's opinion entitles them to be free of criticsm. In fact criticism is a form of recognized and protected free speech. But intentionally punishing or destroying somebody because they exercise their right to free speech is wrong. And it is evil.

.........and it does not exist in any form sanctioned by "the government". You are freaking out at the fact that consumers make noise and get companies to act when an employee says something disagreeable. Or...you are upset that a shopkeeper has his business decline because he demobstrates that he is a bigot. It is all free speech......even the loud voices who do the complaining.

Threats of violence and destruction of property are prosecutable offenses. Mob attacks? Have there been mob attacks that have gone unpunished?

There....did the fiftieth time sink in?

 

[Asclepias]

No. We think free speech entitles us to protection against government harrassment or reprisal and threats of violence against us, our property, and mob attacks on our livelihood for no other reason than we hold opinions not shared by others.

Nobody's opinion entitles them to be free of criticsm. In fact criticism is a form of recognized and protected free speech. But intentionally punishing or destroying somebody because they exercise their right to free speech is wrong. And it is evil.

Anyone threatening violence towards another person or their property because of their opinion are nut cases. Their career or livelihood is fair game if it serves the public and the public doesn't appreciate the opinion.

And there you have it folks. The declaration of the death of the First Amendment and free speech down the toilet. Spelled out in unmistakable terms by Asclepias, the USMB poster boy for kill the First Amendment now.

My declaration is not to kill the 1rst amendment. My declaration is to make people serving the public pay for ignorant racist remarks. They can say what they want but the better not cry about the consequences.

Another beauty by your boy Trent Lott

Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy.

 

[Foxfyre]

They think their free speech entitles them to protection against criticism of what they say.

No. We think free speech entitles us to protection against government harrassment or reprisal and threats of violence against us, our property, and mob attacks on our livelihood for no other reason than we hold opinions not shared by others.

Nobody's opinion entitles them to be free of criticsm. In fact criticism is a form of recognized and protected free speech. But intentionally punishing or destroying somebody because they exercise their right to free speech is wrong. And it is evil.

.........and it does not exist in any form sanctioned by "the government". You are freaking out at the fact that consumers make noise and get companies to act when an employee says something disagreeable. Or...you are upset that a shopkeeper has his business decline because he demobstrates that he is a bigot. It is all free speech......even the loud voices who do the complaining.

Threats of violence and destruction of property are prosecutable offenses. Mob attacks? Have there been mob attacks that have gone unpunished?

There....did the fiftieth time sink in?

Do you think arguing the same invalid point 50 times makes it any more credible than the first time? It doesn't. And yes, there are numerous cases of 'mob attacks' on people from Chick-fil-a to Paula Deen to Rush Limbaugh or Trent Lott, not for any misconduct these people have ever done, but simply for holding an opinion that the PC police don't like.

Criticize their opinion? Certainly. Exercise your right to change the radio or TV station or shop someplace else or express your opinion about what somebody said? Absolutely. But to attempt to destroy such people's livelihood or otherwise destroy them via mob attack? That is wrong. That is evil.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No. We think free speech entitles us to protection against government harrassment or reprisal and threats of violence against us, our property, and mob attacks on our livelihood for no other reason than we hold opinions not shared by others.

Nobody's opinion entitles them to be free of criticsm. In fact criticism is a form of recognized and protected free speech. But intentionally punishing or destroying somebody because they exercise their right to free speech is wrong. And it is evil.

.........and it does not exist in any form sanctioned by "the government". You are freaking out at the fact that consumers make noise and get companies to act when an employee says something disagreeable. Or...you are upset that a shopkeeper has his business decline because he demobstrates that he is a bigot. It is all free speech......even the loud voices who do the complaining.

Threats of violence and destruction of property are prosecutable offenses. Mob attacks? Have there been mob attacks that have gone unpunished?

There....did the fiftieth time sink in?

Do you think arguing the same invalid point 50 times makes it any more credible than the first time? It doesn't. And yes, there are numerous cases of 'mob attacks' on people from Chick-fil-a to Paula Deen to Rush Limbaugh or Trent Lott, not for any misconduct these people have ever done, but simply for holding an opinion that the PC police don't like.

Criticize their opinion? Certainly. Exercise your right to change the radio or TV station or shop someplace else or express your opinion about what somebody said? Absolutely. But to attempt to destroy such people's livelihood or otherwise destroy them via mob attack? That is wrong. That is evil.

You obviously think arguing the same dopey thing 50 times is wonderful.

Those were not mob attacks. You are very dramatic. Those people being fired or their business reduced because they made statements that enough people found objectionable.

All of them are still FREE TO SAY ANYTHING THEY WANT. But they have learned that doing so may have consequences. Their freedom of speech has not been suppressed. And those consequences are not coming from 'the government'.

 

[Foxfyre]

.........and it does not exist in any form sanctioned by "the government". You are freaking out at the fact that consumers make noise and get companies to act when an employee says something disagreeable. Or...you are upset that a shopkeeper has his business decline because he demobstrates that he is a bigot. It is all free speech......even the loud voices who do the complaining.

Threats of violence and destruction of property are prosecutable offenses. Mob attacks? Have there been mob attacks that have gone unpunished?

There....did the fiftieth time sink in?

Do you think arguing the same invalid point 50 times makes it any more credible than the first time? It doesn't. And yes, there are numerous cases of 'mob attacks' on people from Chick-fil-a to Paula Deen to Rush Limbaugh or Trent Lott, not for any misconduct these people have ever done, but simply for holding an opinion that the PC police don't like.

Criticize their opinion? Certainly. Exercise your right to change the radio or TV station or shop someplace else or express your opinion about what somebody said? Absolutely. But to attempt to destroy such people's livelihood or otherwise destroy them via mob attack? That is wrong. That is evil.

You obviously think arguing the same dopey thing 50 times is wonderful.

Those were not mob attacks. You are very dramatic. Those people being fired or their business reduced because they made statements that enough people found objectionable.

All of them are still FREE TO SAY ANYTHING THEY WANT. But they have learned that doing so may have consequences. Their freedom of speech has not been suppressed. And those consequences are not coming from 'the government'.

I am not talking about people being fired for not upholding the principles or values of the business or organization employing them. I am not talking about people losing business because their customers choose not to do business with them. Those are legitimate consequences of valid criticism.

But organizing campaigns to intimidate or badger advertisers to drop a radio program or TV host or otherwise intentionally organizing efforts to destroy somebody's reputation or means of livelihood for no other reason than you disagree with them? That is evil. Even if I am operating alone, for me to call somebody's advertisers and threaten a boycott if they don't drop this program or that program, that is evil.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Do you think arguing the same invalid point 50 times makes it any more credible than the first time? It doesn't. And yes, there are numerous cases of 'mob attacks' on people from Chick-fil-a to Paula Deen to Rush Limbaugh or Trent Lott, not for any misconduct these people have ever done, but simply for holding an opinion that the PC police don't like.

Criticize their opinion? Certainly. Exercise your right to change the radio or TV station or shop someplace else or express your opinion about what somebody said? Absolutely. But to attempt to destroy such people's livelihood or otherwise destroy them via mob attack? That is wrong. That is evil.

You obviously think arguing the same dopey thing 50 times is wonderful.

Those were not mob attacks. You are very dramatic. Those people being fired or their business reduced because they made statements that enough people found objectionable.

All of them are still FREE TO SAY ANYTHING THEY WANT. But they have learned that doing so may have consequences. Their freedom of speech has not been suppressed. And those consequences are not coming from 'the government'.

I am not talking about people being fired for not upholding the principles or values of the business or organization employing them. I am not talking about people losing business because their customers choose not to do business with them. Those are legitimate consequences of valid criticism.

But organizing campaigns to intimidate or badger advertisers to drop a radio program or TV host or otherwise intentionally organizing efforts to destroy somebody's reputation or means of livelihood for no other reason than you disagree with them? That is evil. Even if I am operating alone, for me to call somebody's advertisers and threaten a boycott if they don't drop this program or that program, that is evil.

It is an expression of free speech. It can be abused.....and when it is, it is likely to be the subject of litigation.

You won't believe this.....but I am not a person who appreciates boycotts. I think they can have a negative impact on businesses that have nothing to do with the loudmouth who said something stupid. Take Limbaugh, for example. A lot of radio advertising is sold in blocks. The advertiser is grouped in with several programs. So....someone boycotting an advertiser for continuing to buy time on the fat druggie's show.....is hurting other shows when the advertiser relents and stops doing so. It then casts a pall on radio advertising in general. I dislike it as much as you do.

But....I digress. None of this represents a slow and methodical eroding of our freedom of speech by "them". These are incidents of people exercising their speech rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

No. Trying to destroy somebody's livelihood or reputation because you don't like them or what they say is not exercising free speech rights. It is a dedicated effort to deny somebody else theirs.

 

[daveman]

You have changed the subject. The subject we were discussing was your claim that the government was punishing people who made negative comments about the Obama administration on the website that Obama's campaign set up to address false accusations. It was Stockman's letter to Issa asking for an investigation based on Erik Erikson's claim. That went nowhere. As it was nothing.

The fake IRS scandal is still fake. The politically motivated organizations that were flagged based on their NAME were trying to gain tax exempt status. Since organizations with liberal or progressive NAMES were also flagged, it is an indication of a weird policy of flagging more than unfair targeting due to ideology.

Issa has made a fool of himself with the issue. None of those organizations were ever stopped from saying what they wanted to say. And, in fact, none were even denied the tax exemption that they were seeking. That is going nowhere. As it is nothing.

Now...as I have addressed the new topic that you decided to bring up...where would you like to go next?

LOL, Templar....LOL!

How, exactly, is the government ‘punishing’ anyone?

Exposing those who contrive or spread lies about the Administration as liars isn’t ‘punishment.’

You were punished a while ago in this thread for lying, Clayton. You insisted that Lois Lerner was not involved in a IRS coverup of targeting Tea Party orgs. I tarred and feathered you on the spot. All you can do is whine about how I am exposing this "Administration" for what it really is. Whatchoo gonna do, Clayton, sick the "Truth Police" on me?

I hear for every ten denunciations, you get a free pair of jackboots!

 

[daveman]

The poisonous attitudes of the PC police of course will judge him by what they WANT to believe rather than by what he actually said in the spirit it was said.

 

[Asclepias]

No. Trying to destroy somebody's livelihood or reputation because you don't like them or what they say is not exercising free speech rights. It is a dedicated effort to deny somebody else theirs.

Why is it okay for a racist/bigot/misogynist etc to destroy someones livelihood or reputation but its evil when someone does it back to them?

 

[daveman]

They think their free speech entitles them to protection against criticism of what they say.

If you're talking about liberals, you're correct.

Example: Tim Robbins was quite vocal in his opposition to the war in Iraq. Every opportunity he got, he made it clear.

The Baseball Hall of Fame at Cooperstown was planning a 15th-anniversary celebration of Robbins' movie Bull Durham. The event was cancelled due to the near-certainty that Robbins would once again use the publicity to voice his anti-war stance, which would be inappropriate.

He gave a speech at the National Press Club sometime later:

A chill wind is blowing in this nation. A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and Clear Channel and Cooperstown. If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications.​

Of course, the Bush Admin had nothing to do with the event's cancellation. Robbins was not censored by the government, his rights were not oppressed, his freedom of speech was not abridged. No one was ever in doubt of his views.

Yet he ominously said there was a "chill wind".

Another example: The Dixie Chicks. They made comments overseas that angered their fans. The fans stopped buying the Chicks' records. The left went ballistic, screeching "Censorship!!" -- when, of course, there was no such thing.

They think free speech entitles them to protection against criticism of what they say.

 

[daveman]

"If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications."

Robbins was right -- only he was a decade early.

 

[daveman]

Anyone threatening violence towards another person or their property because of their opinion are nut cases. Their career or livelihood is fair game if it serves the public and the public doesn't appreciate the opinion.

And there you have it folks. The declaration of the death of the First Amendment and free speech down the toilet. Spelled out in unmistakable terms by Asclepias, the USMB poster boy for kill the First Amendment now.

My declaration is not to kill the 1rst amendment. My declaration is to make people serving the public pay for ignorant racist remarks. They can say what they want but the better not cry about the consequences.

Really?

1) "(Obama’s) a nice person, he’s very articulate this is what’s been used against him, but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic." -- Dan Rather

2) “White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." -- Al Sharpton

3) "‘Hymies.’ ‘Hymietown.’" -- Jesse Jackson’s description of New York City while on the 1984 presidential campaign trail.

4) "A few years ago, (Barack Obama) would have been getting us coffee." -- Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy

5) "The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington and meets with the puppet in the White House. He then goes down Pennsylvania Avenue and meets with the puppets in Congress. The Israeli leader then 'brings back millions of dollars' in aid to Israel." -- Ralph Nader

6) "(Harry Reid) was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." -- Harry Reid's comments reported by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann

7) "I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation." -- Former Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd (D.,Conn.)

8) “Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them.” -- Mary Frances Berry, former Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights

9) "Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness." -- Mary Frances Berry, former Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights

10) “Well, because the Arabs who were involved in 9/11 cooperated with the Zionists, actually. It was a cooperation. They gave them the perfect excuse to denounce all Arabs. It’s a racist sort of thing, really racist – you know, picking out these 19 or 20 terrorists – they were terrorists – and saying all the Arabs are like them.” — Former Democratic Senator James Abourezk on Hizbullah TV

11) "Let me see one of you adopt one of those ugly black babies." -- Abortionist Ashutosh Ron Virmani

12) “There’s no great, white bigot; there’s just about 200 million little white bigots out there.” -- USA Today columnist Julienne Malveaux

13) "Them Jews aren’t going to let (Obama) talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office. …They will not let him talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is.” -- Jeremiah Wright

14) "There’s white racist DNA running through the synapses of his or her brain tissue. They will kill their own kind, defend the enemies of their kind or anyone who is perceived to be the enemy of the milky white way of life." -- Jeremiah Wright

15) "The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the lake of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years.” -- Louis Farrakhan

16) “White people shouldn’t be allowed to vote. It’s for the good of the country and for those who’re bitter for a reason and armed because they’re scared.” -- Left-wing journalist Jonathan Valania

17) "(Joseph Lowery) said that when he was a young militant, he used to say all white folks were going to hell. ...'Then he mellowed and just said most of them were. Now, he said, he is back to where he was.’" -- The Daily Mail quotes Joseph Lowery, who gave the benediction at President Obama’s inauguration

18) "We are owned by propagandists against the Arabs. There’s no question about that. Congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where their mouth is…We’re being pushed into a wrong direction in every way." -- Helen Thomas

19) “You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent.” -- Joe Biden

20) “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” -- Joe Biden

21) "I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street." -- Spike Lee

22) “I want to go up to the closest white person and say: ‘You can’t understand this, it’s a black thing’ and then slap him, just for my mental health.” — New York City Councilman, Charles Barron

23) "We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops. They ought to go." -- Marion Barry

24) “The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person…” -- Barack Obama

25) “That’s just how white folks will do you. It wasn’t merely the cruelty involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn’t know that they were being cruel in the first place. Or at least thought you deserving of their scorn.” -- Barack Obama​

How about these horribly racist comments?

1. “You’re not a member of the Taliban, are you?” – Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense

2. “I love this quote. It’s from Mahatma Gandhi. He ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years. Mr. Gandhi, do you still go to the gas station? A lot of wisdom comes out of that gas station” – Hillary Clinton, Former Secretary of State

3. “In about 18 months from now, hopefully [state Sen. Vincent Sheheen] will have sent Nikki Haley back to wherever the hell she came from and this country can move forward.” – Former South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian

6. “[Harry Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as a Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American with ‘no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’” – Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, as quoted in the book Game Change​

I'd eagerly await your condemnation of these racist remarks, but I have a feeling I'd be waiting...well, forever.

Another beauty by your boy Trent Lott

Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy.

He's right. Ever hear of Affirmative Action? It counts as racial discrimination if the victim is white, in case you didn't know.

 

[daveman]

No. Trying to destroy somebody's livelihood or reputation because you don't like them or what they say is not exercising free speech rights. It is a dedicated effort to deny somebody else theirs.

Why is it okay for a racist/bigot/misogynist etc to destroy someones livelihood or reputation but its evil when someone does it back to them?

Because you (kollektively) label anyone who holds views you don't like as racist/bigot/misogynist, whether or not they actually are.

The left has made those terms useless. All they mean now is "someone whose opinions I can't rationally argue against, so I will lash out emotionally with spurious charges".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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

They think their free speech entitles them to protection against criticism of what they say.

No. We think free speech entitles us to protection against government harrassment or reprisal and threats of violence against us, our property, and mob attacks on our livelihood for no other reason than we hold opinions not shared by others.

Nobody's opinion entitles them to be free of criticsm. In fact criticism is a form of recognized and protected free speech. But intentionally punishing or destroying somebody because they exercise their right to free speech is wrong. And it is evil.

The bolded in the first paragraph is incorrect.

The First Amendment applies only to the public sector, law and policy making government entities.

If attacked by a mob because it disagrees with your message, call the police, that concerns criminal, not civil, law; and don’t bother filing a civil rights violation lawsuit against the government.

This is where conservatives and others on the right get it wrong with their ‘PC’ nonsense. A private website, publisher, or broadcaster that refuses to disseminate particular political dogma is not ‘violating’ the right to free speech. Private companies that refuse to do business with persons or groups whose message is perceived to be offensive are not ‘violating’ free speech. If the general public perceives certain speech to be offensive or inappropriate, private society is at liberty to admonish that offensive or inappropriate speech, where such an admonishment does not constitute a ‘violation’ of the First Amendment.

The bolded in the second paragraph is also incorrect, if the reference is to private individuals or entities punishing speech perceived to be inappropriate. Some might consider it ‘wrong’ or ‘evil’ but it’s not a ‘violation’ of free speech.

 

[Asclepias]

And there you have it folks. The declaration of the death of the First Amendment and free speech down the toilet. Spelled out in unmistakable terms by Asclepias, the USMB poster boy for kill the First Amendment now.

My declaration is not to kill the 1rst amendment. My declaration is to make people serving the public pay for ignorant racist remarks. They can say what they want but the better not cry about the consequences.

I'd eagerly await your condemnation of these racist remarks, but I have a feeling I'd be waiting...well, forever.

Another beauty by your boy Trent Lott

Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy.

He's right. Ever hear of Affirmative Action? It counts as racial discrimination if the victim is white, in case you didn't know.

How did you go from what I said to a list of remarks that can be taken as racist? Everyone of those comments met with some consequence. Some of the remarks I thought were racist others I didnt so i wont condemn all of them. if the people saying those things were not driven from their livelihood it is because the people that had an issue with the remarks did not protest or were very few in number. IOW they did not exercise their 1rst amendment rights.

AA is not racial discrimination. Its intent was to right a wrong. If it was racial then the white women would not be the #1 benefactors of it.

 

[Asclepias]

No. Trying to destroy somebody's livelihood or reputation because you don't like them or what they say is not exercising free speech rights. It is a dedicated effort to deny somebody else theirs.

Why is it okay for a racist/bigot/misogynist etc to destroy someones livelihood or reputation but its evil when someone does it back to them?

Because you (kollektively) label anyone who holds views you don't like as racist/bigot/misogynist, whether or not they actually are.

The left has made those terms useless. All they mean now is "someone whose opinions I can't rationally argue against, so I will lash out emotionally with spurious charges".

I dont know what form of English you subscribe to but I still use those words in the traditional sense.