Which would you prefer?

[NYcarbineer]

Looks like yet another USMB thread has been derailed by a poster who wanted to avoid its primary point by putting others on the defensive.

Do you believe racists should have the freedom to say 'anything', or do you believe the government should have some degree of authority to restrict that freedom?

I'm glad you can recognize your behaviors so easily.
.

So as usual you can't answer that question.

I'll answer it for you. You choose #2, because I'm sure you would side with the government and your school district (other institution)

if they fired an elementary school teacher for telling his 4th grade class that most of this country's problems come from there being 'too many fucking ******* here' and the Court upheld that firing.

Eh??????

of course that teacher should be fired.

what's the problem?

The problem is that whoever chose #1 in the OP (remember the OP?)

doesn't believe that teacher should be fired.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Shining a light on it, as in the past two years of having a Presidential candidate and now President with a dog whistle encouraging that kind of thinking, has only made it more popular. It encourages it to give it a soap box.

The alternative is allowing these scum bags to hide in the shadows.

The remedy for intolerable speech is not a muzzle. The remedy is debate.

When I first started doing....let's call it...persuasive writing, my "editors" would always tell me that I shouldn't repeat the opposition's arguments in my response. I hated doing that because I had great success stating the arguments in a way that made them appear, for lack of a better description, stupid.

Encourage the racist fucktards to spew their guile. Let them shine as an example of what NOT to do. Peacefully respond and show the world why they are wrong.

 

[bendog]

No a public school can fire a person over a private facebook post, unless the speech is explicitly protected. For example a PA law probably exempts people from being fired over race religion gender and possibly sexual preference.

this was about a student.

Ah, students don't have full 1st Amend protection. I had assumed this was about the students who were disciplined over some stupid post showing them in Klan robes or blackface, but no matter. This issue was more in the forefront back during civil rights and Vietnam, when students sought to protest.

So students cant express how they feel? WTF

Not if their expression has a negative effect on "the educational environment."

Lol, so students dont have first amendment rights at their homes.
Did you hear that guys?
Should a person that thinks fat people are gross be expelled? You know, if they said it on instagram at their own house.

I don't think a school, or an employer, can discipline anyone for what they say to another individual in their own home, so long as criminal behavior is not involved.

But once one posts on social media, or even puts up a yard sign, they cross a line. Govt or an employer can't take down the social media or yard sign, but if the message causes a negative effect on an educational setting, or a negative effect on how an employer is viewed, discipline can legally take place.

That's just the way it is. If you think it shouldn't be that way, I respect your view. I think the view is naïve and fails to allow for how other people are affected by speech

 

[Wry Catcher]

Simple poll!

False Dichotomy.

In other words, you are ashamed of the choice you want to pick. Join EVERYone else

Everyone else who has taken a course in logic or Semantics.

 

[Mac1958]

This thread has certainly inspired some interesting comments.

Not surprising, but interesting.

Some just won't freely support freedom of expression.
.

Given that you've now conceded you want the government to have the power to limit protected speech, you're arguing with the wrong side.

I don't have a side. I'm arguing against the Regressive Left. You.
.

He doesn't see it. Its like guns.

He is willing to do away with all speech in order to say that someone can call in a bomb threat. So, naturally, the only kind of speech that should be allowed is when the government removes the physical gag from your mouth. That is the ONLY way we can be safe. If we allow others to to say what we hate to hear, then why, we can shut them up because someone may call in a bomb threat.

I guess no matter how I try to get My head around it, his logic is beyond baffling.

In actuality, the First Amendment is NOT the government giving us permission to express ourselves. It is a forbidding of the government from preventing us from expressing ourselves.

Now, no one has the freedom from the consequences of their expression. So, people who don't like it are free to express their displeasure. Their freedom ends when they prevent others from having the same right.

Getting pushback for unpopular speech is okay. Just don't be surprised if you try to do it violently and end up bleeding yourself.

Illiberal Leftist Authoritarians are all about control.
.

 

[S.J.]

So, by choosing #2 we could shut up Oprah, Whoopie, the Obamas, Reverend Al, Jesse, and most of the Democratic Party? Hmmm.

You would need the government behind you to do that.

I know, the left has been using government to silence their opposition for a long time now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not if their expression has a negative effect on "the educational environment."

Lol, so students dont have first amendment rights at their homes.
Did you hear that guys?
Should a person that thinks fat people are gross be expelled? You know, if they said it on instagram at their own house.

I don't know what instagram is, but my guess is that more than the people inside your home can read it. Is that right? It's not just an email to one person?
So it's no more private than Trump sending a tweet from the shitter every morning. It goes out to the public at large, doesn't it? Who cares where it is sent from?
Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

My point was, it isnt school property or even a school function. Instagram is a PERSONAL social media account.

And yet you don't want to give that student free speech protection.

what?

In post 107 you said 'nope' to the question of whether the government should have the power to protect that student's free speech rights.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The problem is that whoever chose #1 in the OP (remember the OP?)

doesn't believe that teacher should be fired.

NOT TRUE.

The teacher has the right to free speech and that right was upheld.

The teacher does NOT have a right to that job. The employer also has a right to fire those who embarrass the employer or do things that call in to question the employer's integrity.

See the difference?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, by choosing #2 we could shut up Oprah, Whoopie, the Obamas, Reverend Al, Jesse, and most of the Democratic Party? Hmmm.

You would need the government behind you to do that.

I know, the left has been using government to silence their opposition for a long time now.

The 1st Amendment is the GOVERNMENT. The 2nd Amendment is the GOVERNMENT.

You will go to the GOVERNMENT every time you think someone had violated your rights in either amendment.

 

[S.J.]

Simple poll!

you should probably ask your president who tries to shut down everything that criticizes him. And I'll remind you that he has been whining about changing libel/slander laws (which have been tested Constitutionally) to make speech more restrictive.

just saying.

You mean like Obama's 'Truth Squad'?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The problem is that whoever chose #1 in the OP (remember the OP?)

doesn't believe that teacher should be fired.

NOT TRUE.

The teacher has the right to free speech and that right was upheld.

The teacher does NOT have a right to that job. The employer also has a right to fire those who embarrass the employer or do things that call in to question the employer's integrity.

See the difference?

Baloney. Free speech rights are the rights to speech and NOT be punished for it. You're talking nonsense.

 

[S.J.]

So, by choosing #2 we could shut up Oprah, Whoopie, the Obamas, Reverend Al, Jesse, and most of the Democratic Party? Hmmm.

You would need the government behind you to do that.

I know, the left has been using government to silence their opposition for a long time now.

The 1st Amendment is the GOVERNMENT. The 2nd Amendment is the GOVERNMENT.

You will go to the GOVERNMENT every time you think someone had violated your rights in either amendment.

In case you didn't catch the sarcasm in my first post, I was joking. I don't want to silence the racists, I want to know who they are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The problem is that whoever chose #1 in the OP (remember the OP?)

doesn't believe that teacher should be fired.

NOT TRUE.

The teacher has the right to free speech and that right was upheld.

The teacher does NOT have a right to that job. The employer also has a right to fire those who embarrass the employer or do things that call in to question the employer's integrity.

See the difference?

Does everyone else see how unbearably stupid the above post is?

 

[DrLove]

No. I embrace freedom. What makes me disturbed is the use of freedom to advance nefarious crap like racism.

So, what do we do about it? Ban racist speech?

No - as I believe you said in another response (in so many words) .. we welcome it, shine a light on it, and engage in peaceful debate.

 

[Two Thumbs]

No it's not.

you're just a coward so you twisted the choices around, you don't support free speech, just the speech the echoes your own thoughts.

Nonsense - the LAST thing I want is everyone speak in terms that echo my own speech & thoughts.

however you are unwilling to vote that racist have free speech, like you and everyone else.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I will admit this was one of the more innovative varieties of a troll thread.

 

[bendog]

Simple poll!

you should probably ask your president who tries to shut down everything that criticizes him. And I'll remind you that he has been whining about changing libel/slander laws (which have been tested Constitutionally) to make speech more restrictive.

just saying.

You mean like Obama's 'Truth Squad'?

Death Panel!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I prefer that the first amendment be enforced.... and that includes the decisions on libel/slander laws.

if you're talking about people being able to spew whatever they want and have no repercussions (e.g, post racist rants on FB and then cry because they lost their job), then I'm going to have to say you can say that's a different issue. do you also think that "free speech" means every loon has to be given every forum they want in which to speak?

which do you mean?

I agree. The "free" in free speech is not the same "free" as it is in "free beer." It means unobstructed or unrestrained. It's most definitely not "free" in terms of being costly.

Nobody should stop an idiot from telling the whole world that his neighbor is an illiterate, bankrupt, homosexual, communist (per se defamation in Texas), when said idiot knows it is false.

But, said idiot should be ordered to pay damages for such a false statement.

 

[bendog]

No it's not.

you're just a coward so you twisted the choices around, you don't support free speech, just the speech the echoes your own thoughts.

Nonsense - the LAST thing I want is everyone speak in terms that echo my own speech & thoughts.

however you are unwilling to vote that racist have free speech, like you and everyone else.

I recall I stopped giving money to the ACLU when they supported forcing a city to give the Klan a parade permit. I don't object to the Klan voicing their hate, but I objected to cops having to protect them and taxpayers paying for it.

And we revisited that issue when Trump's "good people" created riots in the city where my kid is in school.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Emotion is part of who we are. Even you have "emotion" as in getting all pissed off about climate change and such. Not being able to understand that words CAN and DO hurt is a lack of empathy typically reserved for psychopaths, and I know you aren't one, so stop talking like one.

WOW.