The Value of Free Speech

[thereisnospoon]

.

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.

Question..

Are you familiar with the latest from the Congress.. where they are going to define who is a journalist and who isn't? Who has 1st Amendment protection and who doesn't.

No, do you have a link for that?

.

Lawmakers seek narrow definition of journalism in Senate debate over media shield law | Free Speech Radio News

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Never. Not once. Never considered it.

And a question for you: Are you equating a "neg rep" on a website with intimidating people not to say words you don't like?

Really?

.

If I can intimidate someone over the internet they shouldn't be on the internet.

Hey, that's almost exactly right. Change "they" to "I" and you're there.

I agree, you shouldn't be on the internet.

 

[thereisnospoon]

.

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.’

Yes there are. Check student conduct policies in most college campuses.
Hell just this week there was a news item in which a student of Modesto Junior College was told he could not distribute copies of the US Constitution on campus. He was told by the campus police that the US Constitution is potentially inflammatory political speech. And that he must go to the school administration to apply for a permit to use the school's "free speech zone". Only then could he distribute the documents.
Campus cop stops student from handing out Constitutions? on Constitution Day | The Daily Caller...
BTW, this student was observing the School's "Constitution Day"...Oh the irony.
If this is not an example of political correctness run amok, it's a mystery.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

You are so wrong...
The Associated Press Drops "Illegal Immigrant" From Standards Book - ABC News
snopes.com: Target Merry Christmas Ban
Before You Go Christmas Shopping, Please Check List of Stores Banning ?Christmas? | Soldier For Liberty
Retailers ban "Merry Christmas" at their own risk
Water buffalo incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seattle Bans the Word ?Citizen? Because it Might Offend Non-Citizens | FrontPage Magazine

This is no place for you. You're not very good at this.
You come here with your insipid drive by posts and offer nothing of substance.
Perhaps you should go back to coaching girl's softball or whatever it is you claim to be an expert at...
Oh and you probably need to replace your "girls kick ass" bumper sticker and stock up on the grease pens you use to write your little cupcake's names on the windows of your mini van.
Off to soccer practice with you now....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Nobody gets upset by the term "illegal immigrant", dummy.

Why do you bother making such easily-disprovable statements?

UCLA student govt resolution bans term 'illegal immigrant' | The Daily Caller

L.A. Times Ban on 'Illegal Immigrant' Puts Everybody Else on the Spot - Adam Clark Estes - The Atlantic Wire

Associated Press Will No Longer Use The Term ?Illegal Immigrant? | FDL News Desk

"Move along. Nothing to see here." This is how liberals attempt to make policy, their points of view. Under the cover of darkness or when no one is looking.
Libs say.."Look, we are in charge. Never mind what we're doing. We are taking care of you. So just shut up about it."

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you say so Dave. You've never been wrong about anything.

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.

You protect your right to liberal free speech and points of view. Your side attempts to ban all others.
What the hell do you think the now outlawed Fairness Doctrine was all about?
There is a book written by David Bernstein entitled "You Can't Say That"..In which the author depicts the incremental erosion of free speech rights and the development of 'speech codes'...
If you don't think this is real, you are out of the loop. Or you are simply a true believer in liberal causes.
Either way, there is a developing push back against liberal speech codes and political correctness. This is moving forward. And there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

I find it refreshing how a liberal freely admits the left's plan to use their free speech rights to squash the free speech rights of those with whom they disagree.
While the right to free speech is not absolute,
the US Constitution does not limit free speech rights to one group's opinion as to what is 'civil'. Yes there are contemporary community standards. There are limits to the type of speech ( curse words and those of sexual innuendo) permitted in electronic media and other limits used to protect children from adult themes...However, that statement by you is what exposed your agenda.

 

[Asclepias]

You're denser than a neutron star. You must have one hell of a chair, Asclepias.

You are about as gullible as a newborn child if you dont think he could find some right wingers to do the same thing if he switched up his proposition to limit the free speech of liberals. Are you really that stupid or are you just playing possum?

Um, given that I don't take you seriously, Asclepias, yes I would be playing possum. Only newborn children like you would be gullible enough to be led around by the hand with liberal propaganda. You just can't stick to the original argument, can you?

Youre the one that responded to me saying he could find some rw's to say the same thing. Why didnt you stick to the point instead of addressing my observation?

 

[Pogo]

If I can intimidate someone over the internet they shouldn't be on the internet.

Hey, that's almost exactly right. Change "they" to "I" and you're there.

I agree, you shouldn't be on the internet.

Yeah I know. You hate to be owned, doncha?

 

[Asclepias]

Freedom of speech is a unrealistic concept. Everything you say has a price attached to it whether you believe it or not. Some of the things people say have a huge hidden cost. To pretend hate speech is not destructive is a bit on the naive side of the ledger. If you cant prove your point and provide a solution to a problem you probably shouldn't be allowed to talk.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Not really, or do laws that require people to, say, be a photographer at a gay wedding when they dont want to, come from liberarians or conservatives?

Or a bakery owner that gets sued because she refused to bake a cake for gay wedding.
Libs claim to preach tolerance, but their hidden agenda is to ram acceptance down the throats of others.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Really? Prove it...And no using liberal blogs or liberal opinion pieces. Facts only.
Get to work.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Not really, or do laws that require people to, say, be a photographer at a gay wedding when they dont want to, come from liberarians or conservatives?

Or a bakery owner that gets sued because she refused to bake a cake for gay wedding.
Libs claim to preach tolerance, but their hidden agenda is to ram acceptance down the throats of others.

There's no way in hell they're going to admit to using PC as a weapon, because then the game is up. It has been fabulously successful for them so far and they'll play the denial game as long as they're breathing.

The only variable is the method of denial. Most will defend its use, but smaller percentage will literally deny it even exists. Which, while being a little insulting, is also kind of amusing.

The clock is ticking, though. The pushback has begun.

.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Any American worth calling themselves patriotic and a 100% supporter of the Constitutional principles that set us apart from every other nation on the planet would have a HUGE problem with that. The reason is simple. Such suits should never happen in the first place.
What the alleged injured parties are saying is "you will do business with me on my terms and if you don't I will use the civil courts to make you pay or put you out of business"..
I cannot think of a more un-American perception.
Such a principle is outrageous. So much so that no one with a scintilla of common sense and decency would be in support of them

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

"Hate"..Oh boy, he's gonna play the race card..
Stow it...

 

[daveman]

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.

They're certainly representative of stupid, uninformed people.

You know, they kind of people that put Obama in office.

Meanwhile, I can help but notice you completely ignored my other examples. Do you know you ignoring them does NOT mean they don't exist?

 

[thereisnospoon]

That was hilarious! All that shows is people dont mind limiting other peoples rights as long as they dont lose their rights.

You're denser than a neutron star. You must have one hell of a chair, Asclepias.

You are about as gullible as a newborn child if you dont think he could find some right wingers to do the same thing if he switched up his proposition to limit the free speech of liberals. Are you really that stupid or are you just playing possum?

Yeah, right. How come no one on your side did so then?

 

[Asclepias]

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?

Any American worth calling themselves patriotic and a 100% supporter of the Constitutional principles that set us apart from every other nation on the planet would have a HUGE problem with that. The reason is simple. Such suits should never happen in the first place.
What the alleged injured parties are saying is "you will do business with me on my terms and if you don't I will use the civil courts to make you pay or put you out of business"..
I cannot think of a more un-American perception.
Such a principle is outrageous. So much so that no one with a scintilla of common sense and decency would be in support of them

What part of the Constitution encourages hate speech and actions? It seems like the principles are up for debate. The preamble highlights some basic concepts

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Where does any of that say you get to discriminate against anyone because you dont personally agree with their sex life?

 

[Asclepias]

You're denser than a neutron star. You must have one hell of a chair, Asclepias.

You are about as gullible as a newborn child if you dont think he could find some right wingers to do the same thing if he switched up his proposition to limit the free speech of liberals. Are you really that stupid or are you just playing possum?

Yeah, right. How come no one on your side did so then?

Probably because everyone on "my side" has enough brain power to understand it proves nothing except people are out for their own best interest. Its already common knowledge to "my side".

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

For some people, yes, they did:

Legal experts say a constitutional amendment proposed by Senate Democrats would eliminate all constitutional rights for nonprofit groups and many religious organizations.​

Now how about you address the other examples I provided?

Sigh....so boring. That headline interested me as it was the first time I had seen it. Naturally, the title is bullshit. Tester and Murphy did no such thing.

Th video is shit. Not worthy of a second look.

Why don't you tell me the purpose of the two WH websites. Be honest.

Thanks for boring me to fucking death.

That video really hits a nerve with you libs..Good.
Oh, it's as real as it gets.
Tough shit.
This is representative of your sides point of view..And you'll just have to live with it.