The Value of Free Speech

[TemplarKormac]

Free speech can go too far, there needs to be some anti-discrimination laws and anti-hate laws otherwise society gets out of control. Look at parts of Europe and the US, and you have dangerous neo-nazi types and religious fundamentalists preaching religious and racial hatred, which results in murders, property destruction and otherwise acts of violence. Russia is the worst example right now, as people are persecuted for being LGBT.

Excuse me?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've never claimed that, although I appreciate the vote of confidence.

However, to claim that progressives defend freedom of speech is asinine. They do only when they agree with the speech.

Nope. We defend it all the time. It is a key part of what makes this country a great place to be lucky enough to be born in. You might want to have some real discussions with some progressives. You know....the kind where you listen as well as talk.

I have.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but anyway:

On another board, I posted my oath of enlistment, explained what it meant, and asked the resident progressives if they would defend MY Constitutional rights with their lives, if necessary.

The answer was invariably, "Hell, NO! Why should we defend YOUR rights, you fascist?!"

Non-anecdotal evidence:

[email protected]

https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/report-an-attack

Tester and Murphy Propose Repealing the First Amendment | National Review Online

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpHOaW99ST4]Obama Supporters Petition to Repeal the FIRST AMENDMENT. Seriously! Watch! - YouTube[/ame]


Do those look like they're designed to protect free speech...or suppress it?

You’ve got to be kidding.

You’re actually this stupid to believe these are ‘Obama supporters,’ or they’re seeking to ‘repeal’ the First Amendment, or that they’re ‘representative’ of any group of persons at all?

It’s as if you have the mentality of a 12-year-old.

 

[hipeter924]

Free speech can go too far, there needs to be some anti-discrimination laws and anti-hate laws otherwise society gets out of control. Look at parts of Europe and the US, and you have dangerous neo-nazi types and religious fundamentalists preaching religious and racial hatred, which results in murders, property destruction and otherwise acts of violence. Russia is the worst example right now, as people are persecuted for being LGBT.

Excuse me?

If you think hate speech and preaching violence should be allowed then that is pretty sad.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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.

No wonder you vote Democrat, you don't have enough brains to know when to KEEP YOUR FUCKING MOUTH SHUT.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If our freedom of speech is ever seriously threatened, you nutters need not worry. Your liberal countrymen will kill the threat. It is the sort of thing we do.

The liberals are the ones that want people punished for saying things that offend people, why the fuck would I trust idiots like that to defend anything?

 

[Steven_R]

If you think hate speech and preaching violence should be allowed then that is pretty sad.

Which is all well and good until someone decides what you're saying crosses some line.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.

Our Freedom of Speech rights are not in danger from the government, thankfully, so we're not going to lose that right in the forseeable future.

Unfortunately, intimidation does clearly exist within what remains of our culture in the form of Political Correctness, which intimidates people into not saying what they're thinking because they don't want to lose their job and/or they don't want to be branded with certain labels. The threat of those labels is used to take the conversation off it tracks and control it.

On the bright side, however, PC has been overplayed and is beginning to lose its effectiveness. People are finally telling these people to take their phony indignation, fold it up, and file it. Excellent!

I want to know what people are thinking and who agrees with them. Unlike the PC Police, I'm not afraid to have people who disagree with me have their opinions heard. I'm not going to do anything to intimidate someone from speaking their mind, and the PC crowd can't say that, no matter how much they try to spin it.

There is no ‘PC police.’

Private citizens are at liberty to speak out against the words and actions of other private citizens found to be offensive or inappropriate, regardless how subjective or capricious the grounds for the objection might perceived to be. That those who engage in the offensive or inappropriate speech allow themselves to be intimidated or shut down by those objecting to their speech is the fault of those engaged in the offensive speech, not the citizens objecting.

This is the nature of a free and democratic society, what Justice Kennedy refers to as the constitution with a lower case ‘c,’ the discourse, debate, disagreement, and dissent of a free people to determine themselves what speech is or is not appropriate, absent interference by legislative measures or rulings by the courts.

It is to be celebrated and encouraged, not ridiculed as being ‘PC.’

If I prove you wrong about that will you admit it?

Didn't think so.

California College Tells Student He Can't Hand Out Copies Of The Constitution On Constitution Day | Techdirt

 

[hipeter924]

If you think hate speech and preaching violence should be allowed then that is pretty sad.

Which is all well and good until someone decides what you're saying crosses some line.

Has worked fine in New Zealand, as a result we never have protests like the UK; which create an atmosphere of fear and hatred:

 

[Pogo]

If our freedom of speech is ever seriously threatened, you nutters need not worry. Your liberal countrymen will kill the threat. It is the sort of thing we do.

The liberals are the ones that want people punished for saying things that offend people, why the fuck would I trust idiots like that to defend anything?

Like your own post immediately before that one?

Postululation inoperative, since it was Liberalism that wrote the First Amendment.

Wrong Amendment anyway, once again this thread, as I read the OP and worthy though it is, is about the Fourth Amendment, not the First.

 

[hipeter924]

If our freedom of speech is ever seriously threatened, you nutters need not worry. Your liberal countrymen will kill the threat. It is the sort of thing we do.

The liberals are the ones that want people punished for saying things that offend people, why the fuck would I trust idiots like that to defend anything?

Doubtful, since it was Liberalism that wrote the First Amendment.

Wrong Amendment anyway, once again this thread, as I read the OP and worthy though it is, is about the Fourth Amendment, not the First.

Free speech is fine, till the Salem witch trials or McCarthyism take hold. Then there is always that phrase about how you shouldn't say fire in a crowded theatre. Free speech has to be handled responsibly or it has capacity to do great harm.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no ‘PC police.’

Private citizens are at liberty to speak out against the words and actions of other private citizens found to be offensive or inappropriate, regardless how subjective or capricious the grounds for the objection might perceived to be. That those who engage in the offensive or inappropriate speech allow themselves to be intimidated or shut down by those objecting to their speech is the fault of those engaged in the offensive speech, not the citizens objecting.

This is the nature of a free and democratic society, what Justice Kennedy refers to as the constitution with a lower case ‘c,’ the discourse, debate, disagreement, and dissent of a free people to determine themselves what speech is or is not appropriate, absent interference by legislative measures or rulings by the courts.

It is to be celebrated and encouraged, not ridiculed as being ‘PC.’

Who came up with the term "man caused disaster"? Or who gets upset when you utter the term "illegal immigrant" and contend they are simply "migrating"?

Yes, you liberals are the PC police. Taking the "Christ" out of Christmas, having gender neutral bathrooms, multi-cultural displays instead of nativity scenes... don't get me started.

Now THAT is a compelling argument. You have absolutely nailed it. I especially like the "man caused disaster" one. Since I have never even heard that term before, it is especially interesting.

Nobody gets upset by the term "illegal immigrant", dummy. There are some people who are offended when they are called "illegal aliens". You know....because they are not creatures from outer space. But nobody has ever been fired for using the term.

Have you ever been in a gender neutral bathroom? Have you ever seen one?

Christ out of Christmas? That is just silly.

Way to go!


By the way. You found that link for Mac. Did you read it? Do you agree with the way the bill was characterized by StephenR?

How does the fact that you are a stupid, ignorant, fuck face prove that other people are wrong?

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?


Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

Interview with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: 'Away From the Politics of Fear' - SPIEGEL ONLINE

 

[Pogo]

The liberals are the ones that want people punished for saying things that offend people, why the fuck would I trust idiots like that to defend anything?

Doubtful, since it was Liberalism that wrote the First Amendment.

Wrong Amendment anyway, once again this thread, as I read the OP and worthy though it is, is about the Fourth Amendment, not the First.

Free speech is fine, till the Salem witch trials or McCarthyism take hold. Then there is always that phrase about how you shouldn't say fire in a crowded theatre. Free speech has to be handled responsibly or it has capacity to do great harm.

I don't think Salem was about free speech, but I disagree about McCarthy. He made himself look like the craven opportunist he was, and it was the right thing to let him dig himself into that abyss.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You guys keep saying that. When are you going to prove it?

This nation values free speech.....it is codified. Any attempt to curtail this freedom must go through the courts. You have no evidence that progressives are making any attempt to curtil free speech.

You have some weird idea that people who want civil discourse ( not me, of course.....I don't give a fuck what assholes say).....are curtailing your right to free speech. Nonsense. They are trying to keep said speech civil. Period.

When these people use their right to free speech to complain about the things assholes say, you guys cry foul....predictably....like Pavlov's pup.

If it is codified, it can be decodified.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 believe your concern has more to do with the Fourth Amendment than the First. Infringement on the First would involve stifling the content of speech rather than the indiscriminate surreptitious harvesting of it.

Nevertheless your point is well taken; the gravity is seriously alarming.

I believe that you are dumber than dog shit.

There would be no need for the government to harvest anything if they had no intention of using it against you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

And this is a post reminding us all of how the left is willing to put up with almost anything as long as the name has a "D" after it.

Fucking bullshit. It is you 'Conservatives' that are opposed to free speech.

Funny, I could have sworn you defended Obama when he blamed a video for Benghazi.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You guys keep saying that. When are you going to prove it?

This nation values free speech.....it is codified. Any attempt to curtail this freedom must go through the courts. You have no evidence that progressives are making any attempt to curtil free speech.

You have some weird idea that people who want civil discourse ( not me, of course.....I don't give a fuck what assholes say).....are curtailing your right to free speech. Nonsense. They are trying to keep said speech civil. Period.

When these people use their right to free speech to complain about the things assholes say, you guys cry foul....predictably....like Pavlov's pup.

Which is still curtailing free speech, the recent cases of buinsesses being sued due to civil rights violations when it comes to gay weddings is case in point.

Seems to be a matter to be settled by the laws of the state where it occureed. Or do you have a problem with that?

Do I have a problem with the government forcing people to do things they object to?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

debating free speech on a non-free speech site.

Strange, I have never really run afoul of the rules here, even though I routinely insult just about everyone, including the admin of this site.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i for one appreciated all the people that wear tinfoil hats. If not for their vigilance who knows what freedoms would be taken away. Too bad they only seem to be interested in protecting the ones that allow them to preach hate.

If that was all that I was interested in I would be trying to shut you up. wouldn't I?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You guys keep saying that. When are you going to prove it?

This nation values free speech.....it is codified. Any attempt to curtail this freedom must go through the courts. You have no evidence that progressives are making any attempt to curtil free speech.

You have some weird idea that people who want civil discourse ( not me, of course.....I don't give a fuck what assholes say).....are curtailing your right to free speech. Nonsense. They are trying to keep said speech civil. Period.

When these people use their right to free speech to complain about the things assholes say, you guys cry foul....predictably....like Pavlov's pup.

Correct.

Not only is there no evidence, but liberals and progressive have always been at the forefront of defending unpopular speech and the right to free expression in the courts.

If you really believed that you wouldn't defend the concept that restrictions on speech are permissible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nope. We defend it all the time. It is a key part of what makes this country a great place to be lucky enough to be born in. You might want to have some real discussions with some progressives. You know....the kind where you listen as well as talk.

I have.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but anyway:

On another board, I posted my oath of enlistment, explained what it meant, and asked the resident progressives if they would defend MY Constitutional rights with their lives, if necessary.

The answer was invariably, "Hell, NO! Why should we defend YOUR rights, you fascist?!"

Non-anecdotal evidence:

[email protected]

https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/report-an-attack

Tester and Murphy Propose Repealing the First Amendment | National Review Online

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpHOaW99ST4"]Obama Supporters Petition to Repeal the FIRST AMENDMENT. Seriously! Watch! - YouTube[/ame]


Do those look like they're designed to protect free speech...or suppress it?

Tester and Murphy.........did not propose repelling the st amendment now, did they?

Just the parts they don't like.