The Value of Free Speech

[Asclepias]

Frankly, I should be mad at the white man for destroying livelihoods of my Native American ancestors, but that time has come and gone. I have been taught not to harbor resentment against them for that. But here you liberals are, continuing to foster the hatred of the white man amongst African Americans. You continue to make them live the past and make suffer it as the present. How utterly despicable. Everyone except you and the Democratic party have moved on past the days of our racist past.

Thats your own personal decision to be stupid and unaware of that people continue racism towards your people. I pledge to stamp out racism no matter where I see it. It does nothing to hurt me and it does everything to make it easier on the people that come after me.

How exactly are people continuing racism against me, exactly? I sit here free, unoppressed. Yet you as a liberal continue to make the black man relive his oppression. You are nothing more than a crazed racist zealot, Asclepias. Your attempting to minimalize the hole you've dug yourself into. Your naivete is astounding.

Your people. I am not content with just my success. I want everyone to be successful and not have to deal with racism. Your selfishness is astounding. So you are all good as long as you personally are successful?

 

[Asclepias]

In order to make a deduction you need more than your ability to jump to conclusions.

But thats what you did except you claim that you just know through osmosis.

Didn't you just accuse me of saying stupid things? Were you looking in a mirror at the time?

If I was less honest I would have argued that the samples of writing that supposedly came from the waitress were identical to the slur, but I cannot say that.

If you didnt accuse the waitress of writing it then I apologize. I dont keep notes. Someone was saying she did and I distinctly remember you supporting them.

 

[Asclepias]

What does that even mean?

It means if the KKK had not killed your ancestors they would have lived out their full lives without racism cutting them down.

The KKK didn't exist when my ancestors were walking this land, numbskull. There were no such thing as racism amongst my people. We all had the same colored skin. We fought for our beliefs against competing beliefs, but none of it was motivated by race. None of it.

Why did you say they killed your ancestors as well?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Thats basically what any assumption is.

And here you are doing it. Guilty of the same.

Yeah. No one ever got hurt from an assumption.

Oh?

That's a pretty dumb thing to say. Many people get hurt by making assumptions. You make them to sate your anger at all of those "racists" out there. You wind up only hurting yourself in the process.

“Assumptions are dangerous things to make, and like all dangerous things to make -- bombs, for instance, or strawberry shortcake -- if you make even the tiniest mistake you can find yourself in terrible trouble. Making assumptions simply means believing things are a certain way with little or no evidence that shows you are correct, and you can see at once how this can lead to terrible trouble. For instance, one morning you might wake up and make the assumption that your bed was in the same place that it always was, even though you would have no real evidence that this was so. But when you got out of your bed, you might discover that it had floated out to sea, and now you would be in terrible trouble all because of the incorrect assumption that you'd made. You can see that it is better not to make too many assumptions, particularly in the morning.”

― Lemony Snicket, The Austere Academy

 

[TemplarKormac]

It means if the KKK had not killed your ancestors they would have lived out their full lives without racism cutting them down.

The KKK didn't exist when my ancestors were walking this land, numbskull. There were no such thing as racism amongst my people. We all had the same colored skin. We fought for our beliefs against competing beliefs, but none of it was motivated by race. None of it.

Why did you say they killed your ancestors as well?

Did I say that? Or are you putting words in my mouth? If you please, quote me. When I refer to the white men, I refer to the Union during the Civil War. Before that, my people existed for tens of thousands of years, without any interference from abroad. Then the Europeans came, then the Conquistadors, and so on and so forth. None of them were the KKK, Asclepias.

 

[Asclepias]

And here you are doing it. Guilty of the same.

Yeah. No one ever got hurt from an assumption.

Oh?

That's a pretty dumb thing to say. Many people get hurt by making assumptions. You make them to sate your anger at all of those "racists" out there. You wind up only hurting yourself in the process.

“Assumptions are dangerous things to make, and like all dangerous things to make -- bombs, for instance, or strawberry shortcake -- if you make even the tiniest mistake you can find yourself in terrible trouble. Making assumptions simply means believing things are a certain way with little or no evidence that shows you are correct, and you can see at once how this can lead to terrible trouble. For instance, one morning you might wake up and make the assumption that your bed was in the same place that it always was, even though you would have no real evidence that this was so. But when you got out of your bed, you might discover that it had floated out to sea, and now you would be in terrible trouble all because of the incorrect assumption that you'd made. You can see that it is better not to make too many assumptions, particularly in the morning.”

― Lemony Snicket, The Austere Academy

Everyone makes assumptions. Its how humans evolved. They relate their circumstances to past knowledge and make an assumption as to the best course of action. You dont get up in the morning and check if your bed has floated out to sea. Try that BS on somebody that doesnt know better.

In matters concerning people once I make an assumption I have trained myself to think about why I made it. I usually come up with the correct answer. Sometimes I even change my mind based on new evidence.

 

[Asclepias]

The KKK didn't exist when my ancestors were walking this land, numbskull. There were no such thing as racism amongst my people. We all had the same colored skin. We fought for our beliefs against competing beliefs, but none of it was motivated by race. None of it.

Why did you say they killed your ancestors as well?

Did I say that? Or are you putting words in my mouth? If you please, quote me. When I refer to the white men, I refer to the Union during the Civil War. Before that, my people existed for tens of thousands of years, without any interference from abroad. Then the Europeans came, then the Conquistadors, and so on and so forth. None of them were the KKK, Asclepias.

No I just went back and found you jumped in on something Quantam said. Stay out of the conversation if you dont want to be wrongly accused. The point still stands though. If a racist attitude is what caused your people to experience hardship why is it ok with you if it is still happening?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why did you say they killed your ancestors as well?

Did I say that? Or are you putting words in my mouth? If you please, quote me. When I refer to the white men, I refer to the Union during the Civil War. Before that, my people existed for tens of thousands of years, without any interference from abroad. Then the Europeans came, then the Conquistadors, and so on and so forth. None of them were the KKK, Asclepias.

No I just went back and found you jumped in on something Quantam said. Stay out of the conversation if you dont want to be wrongly accused. The point still stands though. If a racist attitude is what caused your people to experience hardship why is it ok with you if it is still happening?

What are you talking about? You are too ignorant and naive to understand anything anyone tells you. You ask the question but don't care to understand the answer. Another thing, I will participate in whatever conversations I choose. How ironic you would play right into the theme of my original post.

I asked you to quote me, not bullshit me. The next bullshit response gets negged.

 

[Asclepias]

Did I say that? Or are you putting words in my mouth? If you please, quote me. When I refer to the white men, I refer to the Union during the Civil War. Before that, my people existed for tens of thousands of years, without any interference from abroad. Then the Europeans came, then the Conquistadors, and so on and so forth. None of them were the KKK, Asclepias.

No I just went back and found you jumped in on something Quantam said. Stay out of the conversation if you dont want to be wrongly accused. The point still stands though. If a racist attitude is what caused your people to experience hardship why is it ok with you if it is still happening?

What are you talking about? You are too ignorant and naive to understand anything anyone tells you. You ask the question but don't care to understand the answer. Another thing, I will participate in whatever conversations I choose. How ironic you would play right into the theme of my original post.

I asked you to quote me, not bullshit me. The next bullshit response gets negged.

Oh no! Not the dreaded neg. i see you avoided my question. If a racist attitude is what caused your people to experience hardship why is it ok with you if it is still happening? Furthermore why is it ok the same thought process is allowed to be used to influence further racism against your people?

 

[Foxfyre]

And here you are doing it. Guilty of the same.

Yeah. No one ever got hurt from an assumption.

Oh?

That's a pretty dumb thing to say. Many people get hurt by making assumptions. You make them to sate your anger at all of those "racists" out there. You wind up only hurting yourself in the process.

“Assumptions are dangerous things to make, and like all dangerous things to make -- bombs, for instance, or strawberry shortcake -- if you make even the tiniest mistake you can find yourself in terrible trouble. Making assumptions simply means believing things are a certain way with little or no evidence that shows you are correct, and you can see at once how this can lead to terrible trouble. For instance, one morning you might wake up and make the assumption that your bed was in the same place that it always was, even though you would have no real evidence that this was so. But when you got out of your bed, you might discover that it had floated out to sea, and now you would be in terrible trouble all because of the incorrect assumption that you'd made. You can see that it is better not to make too many assumptions, particularly in the morning.”

― Lemony Snicket, The Austere Academy

Using the rhetorical 'you':

An assumption that you can do something dangerous or destructive without consequence, even when you have done so in the past, can not only hurt somebody, but can have deadly consequences.

An assumption that if big government does not do something, it won't be done at all, can be a dangerous assumption. And can hurt many.

An assumption that it is racist to not agree with your definition of racism can be the most viscious form of racism, and can hurt people.

And an assumption that people should be punished if they believe or express an opinion with which you do not agree, if acted out, not only violates other people's unalienable rights, but could dismantle every liberty protected by the Constitution beginning with the First Amendment. That would hurt hundreds of millions of people. It would be evil.

But to hold the opinion and/or make an assumption and not force it on another, no matter how racist or ignorant or hateful or vile, is an unalienable right that we should all protect and defend. To punish people for nothing more than their thoughts and opinions is evil.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Leftists are taking advantage of the Right Wing fallacy that the private sector can violate our natural rights. Analyzing this pragmatically, the results are the same as if the government ordered the firing of those who got dismissed or demoted for saying something offensive to privileged groups. Even within the government, Trent Lott was removed from his position because he praised Strom Thurmond's original segregationism.

The PC predators are allowed to excuse that because it was a policy within the private rights of the Republican Party. Yet if the Hate Whitey crowd hadn't been intimidating people for decades, the Republicans would not have felt obligated to demote their leader. The point is that if the people don't naturally protect freedom of speech outside the government's jurisdiction, then they will eventually fail to protect themselves and others from government censorship. We do not have a free speech attitude in America.

If I protested instead against Lott's 6th grade grammar in his apology, Netwits would call me a "Grammar Nazi" because they can't defend the fraud in education he inadvertently exposed. With such a SYI attitude, if these people ever got government power, as they did in the Right Wing PC of the McCarthy era and in the Left Wing censorship ever since they would enable government witch hunts.

No. Trent Lott was removed from his position because he praised a colleague on his 100th birthday and his enemies successfully portrayed that to mean that Lott was praising Thurmond's segregationalism. Anybody with a brain knows Lott was smarter than that, anybody with intellectual honesty would have acknowledged that Lott wasn't a segregationalist, and would have given him strong benefit of the doubt that he wasn't even thinking segregationalism when he made the extemporaneous comment. A Democrat would have been immediately shrugged off and it would have been accepted that he wasn't thinking anything bad. But Lott was a target and they got him.

Which is one more example of the visciousness and dishonesty involved in political correctness and why all freedom loving people should condemn it and deplore it when it is used as a weapon to destroy people.

Politics is a dirty game. Everyone knows it. You can make one mis-step and ruin your whole career. If Lott was so intelligent don't you think he would have clarified his remarks to make it perfectly clear he didn't support the segregationist aspect? It would have only taken a few seconds. Could it be possible he knew exactly what he was doing and did support it? Of course this is assuming he is intelligent.

Lott said that if we had followed Thurmond's policies back then, we'd be a lot better off today. So, you are both wrong, one nailed in its anagram denial and the other denying the truth of what Lott said. No wonder you missed the 6th Grade grammar of Lott's forced apology, because stupid is as stupid speaks. Lott's praise of segregation may be one of the few intelligent things he's ever said, but he went back to stupid when he apologized for it.

 

[Foxfyre]

No. Trent Lott was removed from his position because he praised a colleague on his 100th birthday and his enemies successfully portrayed that to mean that Lott was praising Thurmond's segregationalism. Anybody with a brain knows Lott was smarter than that, anybody with intellectual honesty would have acknowledged that Lott wasn't a segregationalist, and would have given him strong benefit of the doubt that he wasn't even thinking segregationalism when he made the extemporaneous comment. A Democrat would have been immediately shrugged off and it would have been accepted that he wasn't thinking anything bad. But Lott was a target and they got him.

Which is one more example of the visciousness and dishonesty involved in political correctness and why all freedom loving people should condemn it and deplore it when it is used as a weapon to destroy people.

Politics is a dirty game. Everyone knows it. You can make one mis-step and ruin your whole career. If Lott was so intelligent don't you think he would have clarified his remarks to make it perfectly clear he didn't support the segregationist aspect? It would have only taken a few seconds. Could it be possible he knew exactly what he was doing and did support it? Of course this is assuming he is intelligent.

Lott said that if we had followed Thurmond's policies back then, we'd be a lot better off today. So, you are both wrong, one nailed in its anagram denial and the other denying the truth of what Lott said. No wonder you missed the 6th Grade grammar of Lott's forced apology, because stupid is as stupid speaks. Lott's praise of segregation may be one of the few intelligent things he's ever said, but he went back to stupid when he apologized for it.

Does it embarrass you at all to write something like that?

I disagree with every syllable of it, consider it unseemly and unAmerican even, and yet I would defend to the death your right to believe it and express it. And it is my right to believe you are very wrong and my right to disagree with it. And we should both be able to do that with impunity.

 

[bendog]

Let’s review the failed premise of the OP:

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.

In the United States the right to free speech is valued, unlike China, consequently it’s ridiculous to compare the two, it is in no way “getting to that point here…”

The OP goes on to confuse the First and Fourth Amendments, where the former concerns free expression and the latter concerns privacy and search and seizure rights in the context of the surveillance programs.

The OP is engaging in demagoguery and commits a slippery slope fallacy.

Last, the OP exhibits his ignorance of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and its fundamental doctrine concerning a reasonable expectation of privacy, where the surveillance programs are both legal and Constitutional. It is settled and accepted case law that there is no expectation of privacy when one voluntarily provides personal information to a private third party, such as a wireless company or ISP. See: United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979). And earlier this year the Supreme Court held in Clapper v. Amnesty International that one has no standing to sue the Federal government concerning the surveillance programs because the programs ‘might’ result in a 4th Amendment privacy rights violation.

All true, but Clapper is pretty cynical. You can't sue to find out if you're being watched unless you can first show you're being watched. However, having been down this concept before, there are people who really think they have an expectation of privacy about where their cell phone is and what ISP's are contacted via the phone. Their beliefs may be honest, but they are fancifal, in that they are based on what they thing internet/cell phone providers SHOULD do instead of what industry practices ARE in reality.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let’s review the failed premise of the OP:

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.

In the United States the right to free speech is valued, unlike China, consequently it’s ridiculous to compare the two, it is in no way “getting to that point here…”

The OP goes on to confuse the First and Fourth Amendments, where the former concerns free expression and the latter concerns privacy and search and seizure rights in the context of the surveillance programs.

The OP is engaging in demagoguery and commits a slippery slope fallacy.

Last, the OP exhibits his ignorance of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and its fundamental doctrine concerning a reasonable expectation of privacy, where the surveillance programs are both legal and Constitutional. It is settled and accepted case law that there is no expectation of privacy when one voluntarily provides personal information to a private third party, such as a wireless company or ISP. See: United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979). And earlier this year the Supreme Court held in Clapper v. Amnesty International that one has no standing to sue the Federal government concerning the surveillance programs because the programs ‘might’ result in a 4th Amendment privacy rights violation.

All true, but Clapper is pretty cynical. You can't sue to find out if you're being watched unless you can first show you're being watched. However, having been down this concept before, there are people who really think they have an expectation of privacy about where their cell phone is and what ISP's are contacted via the phone. Their beliefs may be honest, but they are fancifal, in that they are based on what they thing internet/cell phone providers SHOULD do instead of what industry practices ARE in reality.

Okay, here's TK's OP again. I'll comment on what I believe his intent was with this OP and will trust him to correct me if I misinterpreted his intent.

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

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

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

China Intensifies Social-Media Crackdown - WSJ.com

I took the emphasis of the OP to not be objection to normal or necessary surveillance of the public sector. Our country has a long history of monitoring overseas telephone communications, opening mail bound for other countries, most especially during wartime, and that would naturally include other forms of communication in these modern times with much expanded technology. The public surveillance, among other things, is in the interest of national security and necessary law enforcement that benefits all.

Cell phone and e-mail monitoring, given the greatly expanded dangers in the war on terrorism, is problematic on several levels, both pro and con, and it needs its own discussion, so let's set that aside for now.

But it isn't the surveillance itself that I think TK was addressing, but the fact that the Chinese government, for one example, is using the surveillance to identify and punish those who do not share the national goals, who criticize the existing government, who express thoughts unacceptable to the Chinese government. It is to crush the free exchange of non-subversive information between citizens.

It is the Chinese version of the political correctness police and enforcement of political correctness.

I think the OP uses this to illustrate that the U.S.A. could so easily head down that same path and we should be ever vigilant to defend our unalienable right to hold our opinions, convictions, beliefs, and points of view with impunity.

 

[earlycuyler]

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

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

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

China Intensifies Social-Media Crackdown - WSJ.com

This if funny coming from Tampon Crammer. The one who tattles on posters he doesn't agree with or who offend him. This dude is about the biggest cry babe hers and most willing to have any opposing view point deleted. What a fag.

 

[bendog]

Well, I took the post to be sort of a bait and switch. TK equating the right of privacy (which as others discussed is not really implicated in domestic survellience) but which TK neveless finds infringed, and then at least insinuating is being used to suppress speech, which it is not.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Yes they have the right to destroy me if they can. Its protected under the 1rst amendment for them to speak out against me and call me names.

I define what racism means to me. Its pretty easy. "Does this person think his race is superior to mine?" If the answer is yes then they are a racist in my book. I disagree that AA is racist. It would have to mean that one race was superior over the other. Besides it helps white women more than anyone else. The person using politically incorrect language is showing their inability to be a leader to anyone except a racist person that enjoys that type of thing. If you felt you wanted to go there and try and destroy my reputation over AA you would be well within your rights. I dont think you would get much traction but you are free to give it a whirl.

Your last paragraph is hypocritical. Why do you feel its evil to gang up on a racist when they are espousing the same thing? Racism destroys the lives of those it is practiced against. You must have really enjoyed the fact that Blacks were enslaved then?

Racism destroys lives? When was the last time the KKK did any real damage? If you weren't a thin skinned child you would treat other racists exactly the way they deserve, you would ignore them.

Are you serious? KKK is guilty of killing a lot of my ancestors. I will always do my best to destroy that type of stupidity and hate.

There is nothing wrong with killing in self-defense. Otherwise, anybody can be proved guilty. Until you are willing to debate that, instead of assuming that the Southerners were committing cold-blooded murder, you are not addressing fact, but only a distortion of fact that makes a fact a crime without any proof of criminal intent.

 

[PrometheusBound]

A bunch of Italians enslaved my ancestors, Should I still hold a grudge?

If you can get Affirmative Action, welfare handouts, and sympathy if you rob, rape, and destroy, hey, go for it!

 

[bendog]

Racism destroys lives? When was the last time the KKK did any real damage? If you weren't a thin skinned child you would treat other racists exactly the way they deserve, you would ignore them.

Are you serious? KKK is guilty of killing a lot of my ancestors. I will always do my best to destroy that type of stupidity and hate.

There is nothing wrong with killing in self-defense. Otherwise, anybody can be proved guilty. Until you are willing to debate that, instead of assuming that the Southerners were committing cold-blooded murder, you are not addressing fact, but only a distortion of fact that makes a fact a crime without any proof of criminal intent.

Couldn't it be that there are two distinct lines of thought here. First, I submit that in the history of the South (and other parts of the nation) there is a collective guilt that can be applied to the era(s) that segregation and lynching was at least tolerated, it not implicitly encouraged by the majority to maintain a social order.

However, when you try to alleviate the harm long ago, by disadvantaging one race or another today, arguably society is no less commiting a social wrong.

 

[PrometheusBound]

A bunch of Italians enslaved my ancestors, Should I still hold a grudge?

Yes if those Italians tore apart your races family dynamic for 400 years, then continued to racially oppress your people for another century, and are claiming you should be just fine now.

Whites should get reparations from the Nigerian oil barons because their ancestors sold us inferior merchandise.