The Value of Free Speech

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Obfuscation.
No one is claiming free speech is absolute.
Stand down from your pink soap box...

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

How's the baseball coaching coming along?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Umm. The founders of our nation were of classical liberalism. They believed in freedom and LIBERTY..
Today's liberal resembles not one trait of classical liberalism.
You are partially correct. The 4th Amendment issue comes into play under 'unreasonable searches and seizures'...The impetus is the speech that the Chinese government objects. Here in the US that would be a First Amendment ( free speech) issue..

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Shocking news. Thanks...
Now please state where anyone in this thread is claiming freedom of speech is absolute.

 

[daveman]

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.

Why? Why is the speaker responsible for the actions of the listener?

And you guys insist liberals defend free speech.

 

[daveman]

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."

Indeed.

Not one of them addressed my links. Not one of them will address yours.

Because they know their claims of protecting free speech are false.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Umm. The founders of our nation were of classical liberalism. They believed in freedom and LIBERTY..
Today's liberal resembles not one trait of classical liberalism.
You are partially correct. The 4th Amendment issue comes into play under 'unreasonable searches and seizures'...The impetus is the speech that the Chinese government objects. Here in the US that would be a First Amendment ( free speech) issue..

As do liberals today.

We see that in their advocacy of privacy rights for women, equal protection rights for same-sex couples, due process rights for immigrants, individual liberty rights for homosexuals, and the right to vote for minority citizens – all of which realize opposition by many conservatives.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

More like tickles the funny bone…

 

[daveman]

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?

Where does any of that say you get to curtail anyone's rights because you don't personally agree with their opinions?

 

[Mac1958]

Where does any of that say you get to curtail anyone's rights because you don't personally agree with their opinions?

And that's the core of it.

They want the right to shut down your right.

I have absolutely no interest in doing that to them.

And THAT'S the difference.

.

 

[daveman]

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.

Umm. The founders of our nation were of classical liberalism. They believed in freedom and LIBERTY..
Today's liberal resembles not one trait of classical liberalism.
You are partially correct. The 4th Amendment issue comes into play under 'unreasonable searches and seizures'...The impetus is the speech that the Chinese government objects. Here in the US that would be a First Amendment ( free speech) issue..

This is the left's response to the First Amendment:

Stockman asks for probe of alleged audits of citizens reported to White House email address | Congressman Steve Stockman

WASHINGTON – Congressman Steve Stockman Tuesday asked two House chairmen to investigate allegations individuals reported to a White House email address for criticizing Obama’s health care reforms were targeted with Internal Revenue Service audits.

During the debate over adopting ObamaCare the White House encouraged liberal activists to report Obama’s critics to a “[email protected]” email address. At least one of those reported tells RedState.com editor Erick Erickson he was then targeted with audits. “Remember that website Obama set up to report neighbors who opposed Obamacare? A friend reported himself and got audited shortly thereafter,” Erickson tweeted May 13.

“We need to know if there were any others. This certainly fits the rapidly-expanding pattern of people who criticize Obama suddenly finding themselves targeted by the IRS,” said Stockman. “Obama’s IRS scandal is spreading like a cancer.”

“Government reforms adopted after Watergate prohibit the White House from coordinating with the IRS to target citizens. We know White House critics were targeted by the IRS. We know the White House maintained an active enemies list through [email protected]. Investigators must find out how targets were picked and what, if any, White House personnel knew about it,” said Stockman.

--

The IRS admits targeting conservative groups with harassment, a practice which has since been revealed to be far more widespread than previously admitted. Officials in the Washington, D.C. and California offices also admit targeting conservative groups.

Jewish organizations also report IRS harassment after criticizing the President, and a St. Louis reporter has also come forward to allege he was also targeted by the IRS after asking Obama tough questions.​

 

[LoneLaugher]

Bullshit.

I challenge any one of you to prove that I have ever made even an overture toward trying to take away anyone's fucking right to free speech.

You keep saying "they".....including me.

Prove it. For once....substantiate your fucking claim.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

Where does any of that say you get to curtail anyone's rights because you don't personally agree with their opinions?

Where it says insure domestic Tranquility and promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. You cant keep your extended rights by transgressing on someone elses human rights. Human rights always take precedence.

 

[daveman]

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.

Umm. The founders of our nation were of classical liberalism. They believed in freedom and LIBERTY..
Today's liberal resembles not one trait of classical liberalism.
You are partially correct. The 4th Amendment issue comes into play under 'unreasonable searches and seizures'...The impetus is the speech that the Chinese government objects. Here in the US that would be a First Amendment ( free speech) issue..

As do liberals today.

We see that in their advocacy of privacy rights for women, equal protection rights for same-sex couples, due process rights for immigrants, individual liberty rights for homosexuals, and the right to vote for minority citizens – all of which realize opposition by many conservatives.

Funny how your concern extends only to Democrat special interest groups.

Do you defend Westboro Baptist Church's right to free speech and assembly?

Do you defend the right of white conservatives to own AR-15s and high capacity magazines?

Do you defend the right of Republicans to not have their votes negated by those voting illegally?

 

[daveman]

Where does any of that say you get to curtail anyone's rights because you don't personally agree with their opinions?

And that's the core of it.

They want the right to shut down your right.

I have absolutely no interest in doing that to them.

And THAT'S the difference.

.

Indeed. In my earlier example, I told progressives I was willing to give my life in defense of their freedoms.

Not a single one of them would return that favor. Most wouldn't cross the street to piss on me if I were on fire.

"Free speech for ME, but not for THEE!" The progressive view of the First Amendment.

 

[daveman]

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?

Where does any of that say you get to curtail anyone's rights because you don't personally agree with their opinions?

Where it says insure domestic Tranquility and promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. You cant keep your extended rights by transgressing on someone elses human rights. Human rights always take precedence.

There is no right to not be offended.

You seem to believe there is. You are wrong.

 

[Asclepias]

Where does any of that say you get to curtail anyone's rights because you don't personally agree with their opinions?

Where it says insure domestic Tranquility and promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. You cant keep your extended rights by transgressing on someone elses human rights. Human rights always take precedence.

There is no right to not be offended.

You seem to believe there is. You are wrong.

Who said anything about being offended? I said discriminated against. There is a difference.

 

[daveman]

Where it says insure domestic Tranquility and promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. You cant keep your extended rights by transgressing on someone elses human rights. Human rights always take precedence.

There is no right to not be offended.

You seem to believe there is. You are wrong.

Who said anything about being offended? I said discriminated against. There is a difference.

Indeed there is. But when discussing the First Amendment, we're talking about speech.

PC speech codes are about not offending anyone -- scratch that; they're about not offending Democrat special interest groups.

Offending Christians, Jews, and conservatives is A-OK, and can be thought of as justice.

Right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Speech is not destructive.

I don't know if I made it clear enough for the idiots on the board, fuck off.