The Value of Free Speech

[LoneLaugher]

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?

Now there are codes?

Tell me, what is it that you are afraid to say.....that you want to say....in your daily goings on? What code words are you being intimidated into not using?

 

[Asclepias]

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?

I was addressing an earlier example use regarding the civil suit against the bakery. As illiterate as someones view is they do have the right to express it verbally. I would support an amendment that said you must provide a solution instead of just criticizing so everyone could see how warped your thinking may or may not be.

 

[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.

Speech is not destructive.

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

Hate speech is destructive to any society attempting reconcile different groups. Dont get frustrated. Use your words.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

What the FUCK is wrong with you?

The Constitution does not exist to encourage anything, it exist to you from the FUCKING government. If you actually succeed in making hate speech illegal, or telling people they have to attend weddings even when they don't want to, what will prevent someone else from coming along and telling you you can't talk about being black because it is hate speech against whites? Or telling you that you have to go see a special screening of Stormfront, the Movie? Do you even have enough brains to cause a virus to get warm if we converted all of them to energy and sett off an explosion inside of it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[daveman]

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?

Now there are codes?

Tell me, what is it that you are afraid to say.....that you want to say....in your daily goings on? What code words are you being intimidated into not using?

None.

But I don't work with any liberals.

 

[daveman]

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?

I was addressing an earlier example use regarding the civil suit against the bakery. As illiterate as someones view is they do have the right to express it verbally. I would support an amendment that said you must provide a solution instead of just criticizing so everyone could see how warped your thinking may or may not be.

So you don't support free speech after all.

You know, just like we've been saying.

 

[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?

What the FUCK is wrong with you?

The Constitution does not exist to encourage anything, it exist to you from the FUCKING government. If you actually succeed in making hate speech illegal, or telling people they have to attend weddings even when they don't want to, what will prevent someone else from coming along and telling you you can't talk about being black because it is hate speech against whites? Or telling you that you have to go see a special screening of Stormfront, the Movie? Do you even have enough brains to cause a virus to get warm if we converted all of them to energy and sett off an explosion inside of it?

Nothing is wrong with me. We just disagree. I know thats an alien concept to you but try not to show how frustrated you are. The Constitution does encourage us to think about the concepts contained within it. Thats why its written down.

I never said to make hate speech illegal. I said it was destructive. Me talking about me being black has nothing to do with a white person so why would that be considered hate speech?

I don't advocate telling anyone they have to attend a wedding. However if they have a business used by the public they should and will give everyone the same standard of service regardless of the personal beliefs. If their personal beliefs are more important then they should not be licensed to serve the public as it consists of people that may cause a conflict.

I can see you are emotional about this so I wont address everything else in your post. Please take a chill pill.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

Now there are codes?

Tell me, what is it that you are afraid to say.....that you want to say....in your daily goings on? What code words are you being intimidated into not using?

None.

But I don't work with any liberals.

What? This PC thing does not influence you in any way? Is that what you are saying?

I wonder if anyone here who is complaining about PC in America has a personal anecdote describing when their free speech was infringed upon by PC.

Lets stop talking about some shit that "happens all the time" and start getting some actual examples to work with.

I can tell you....as a liberal....that I have never tried to stop anyone from saying any word or phrase. I have told people who say stupid shit....that they said stupid shit.....but I have never tried to take advantage of them in any way.

Come on.........lets have those personal storiies of how people have personally been intimidated by the PC police.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

I was addressing an earlier example use regarding the civil suit against the bakery. As illiterate as someones view is they do have the right to express it verbally. I would support an amendment that said you must provide a solution instead of just criticizing so everyone could see how warped your thinking may or may not be.

So you don't support free speech after all.

You know, just like we've been saying.

No such thing as free speech as I have said before. Everything has a cost. I don't support chaos. If you have no solution shut up and let brighter minds address the issues.

 

[daveman]

Now there are codes?

Tell me, what is it that you are afraid to say.....that you want to say....in your daily goings on? What code words are you being intimidated into not using?

None.

But I don't work with any liberals.

What? This PC thing does not influence you in any way? Is that what you are saying?

I wonder if anyone here who is complaining about PC in America has a personal anecdote describing when their free speech was infringed upon by PC.

Lets stop talking about some shit that "happens all the time" and start getting some actual examples to work with.

I can tell you....as a liberal....that I have never tried to stop anyone from saying any word or phrase. I have told people who say stupid shit....that they said stupid shit.....but I have never tried to take advantage of them in any way.

Come on.........lets have those personal storiies of how people have personally been intimidated by the PC police.

Start your own thread.

 

[daveman]

I was addressing an earlier example use regarding the civil suit against the bakery. As illiterate as someones view is they do have the right to express it verbally. I would support an amendment that said you must provide a solution instead of just criticizing so everyone could see how warped your thinking may or may not be.

So you don't support free speech after all.

You know, just like we've been saying.

No such thing as free speech as I have said before. Everything has a cost. I don't support chaos. If you have no solution shut up and let brighter minds address the issues.

No, I don't believe I will. You see, I have the freedom to say what I like, even if it offends sissy bedwetters who think the purpose of government is to take care of everyone like they're in kindergarten.

You don't like it?

Tough shit.

 

[LoneLaugher]

None.

But I don't work with any liberals.

What? This PC thing does not influence you in any way? Is that what you are saying?

I wonder if anyone here who is complaining about PC in America has a personal anecdote describing when their free speech was infringed upon by PC.

Lets stop talking about some shit that "happens all the time" and start getting some actual examples to work with.

I can tell you....as a liberal....that I have never tried to stop anyone from saying any word or phrase. I have told people who say stupid shit....that they said stupid shit.....but I have never tried to take advantage of them in any way.

Come on.........lets have those personal storiies of how people have personally been intimidated by the PC police.

Start your own thread.

Awwww. You don't want to answer? What a shocker.

 

[Asclepias]

So you don't support free speech after all.

You know, just like we've been saying.

No such thing as free speech as I have said before. Everything has a cost. I don't support chaos. If you have no solution shut up and let brighter minds address the issues.

No, I don't believe I will. You see, I have the freedom to say what I like, even if it offends sissy bedwetters who think the purpose of government is to take care of everyone like they're in kindergarten.

You don't like it?

Tough shit.

So you do support ineffective government and chaos in society? I'm glad you are being truthful. I got it now. RW's would rather the ship sink completely if it means plugging the holes created by their actions.

 

[Asclepias]

What? This PC thing does not influence you in any way? Is that what you are saying?

I wonder if anyone here who is complaining about PC in America has a personal anecdote describing when their free speech was infringed upon by PC.

Lets stop talking about some shit that "happens all the time" and start getting some actual examples to work with.

I can tell you....as a liberal....that I have never tried to stop anyone from saying any word or phrase. I have told people who say stupid shit....that they said stupid shit.....but I have never tried to take advantage of them in any way.

Come on.........lets have those personal storiies of how people have personally been intimidated by the PC police.

Start your own thread.

Awwww. You don't want to answer? What a shocker.

Pretty much par for the course for people that only want to yell their opinion. Anything towards resolution and understanding infringes on their rights to yell.

 

[Borillar]

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.

Yeah, well the right was fine with Bush's "Free Speech Zones". Seems they are willing to put up with anything as long as there is a "R" after it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

How does me calling you an idiot ass transgress your human rights?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I have every fucking right in the world to discriminate because I am not the fucking government. Only a moronic ass wipe that can't count to 1 would have a problem understanding that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I was addressing an earlier example use regarding the civil suit against the bakery. As illiterate as someones view is they do have the right to express it verbally. I would support an amendment that said you must provide a solution instead of just criticizing so everyone could see how warped your thinking may or may not be.

You are wrong, period.

 

[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.

Hate speech is destructive to any society attempting reconcile different groups. Dont get frustrated. Use your words.

I see fuck off wasn't clear enough for you, I guess that makes you dumber than an idiot.