Why Liberals Hate Free Speech

[Billy_Kinetta]

I hope everyone can read the message under FREE SPEECH in your pic.

Nope. Talk it up, dummies, it makes your stupidity that much easier to denounce.

Once upon a time there was this imbecile Liberal who admitted his antipathy to free speech....


"Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good." The Liberal Commitment.....

Oh...wait.....that was you!

Yep, and still true for people who say utterly stupid shit, like you.

Go to Hobby Lobby, buy a nice mirror, take a good look. You seem to need to realize the person looking back at you despises freedom, and really doesn't have the least clue what freedom is.

I don't tolerate the stupid well, neither do most liberals, including the Founders. Stupid people annoy us.

You are not a liberal in the sense of the definition at the time of the Founders. There is no relation between them, and you.

 

[Moonglow]

Liberals are the power in the political realm....and they illustrate what Lord Action meant about power absolutely corrupting those who control it.



1." ...do any of you actually remember a time when liberals truly supported and believed in freedom of speech.... genuine,bona fide agreement with the principle that liberty includes allowing those with whom you disagree to have access to the marketplace of ideas, and that this marketplace itself will decide which are the best ones. You know, Voltaire's "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," and all that?

I can't either. Probably nobody can who was not born during or before World War II,



2.... those on the Left do not believe in free speech. They simply do not accept the fundamental principle that people of all opinions ought to be able to express those opinions without being punished for it, or at least hindered to the greatest degree possible in their ability to express themselves.



3. [Thus the] editorial in Harvard's student newspaper The Crimson, in which Sandra Korn, a student columnist and "women's studies" major (who didn't see that one coming?) obligingly calls for academic totalitarianism,

"Yet the liberal obsession with 'academic freedom" seems a bit misplaced to me. .... No academic question is ever 'free' from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of "academic freedom"?



"Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of 'academic justice. When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.



"The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly...


There, in a nutshell, is the modern liberal attitude toward freedom of speech, and by extension freedom of thought. If research doesn't substantiate the cultural goals and priorities of today's Neo-Fascists, then we must ensure that it "does not continue." Why liberals hate freedom of speech



If speech refutes the Left's positions on any number of issues, then it has to be silenced. "Academic justice" means suppression of all those naughty things that people might say that contradict us.


As far as speech is concerned, the Left definitely prefers a command economy over the free market.

There is nothing free in this world....

 

[Mac1958]

What the PC Police choose to ignore about freedom of speech/expression is what is implicit:

Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery. It goes against the very spirit of the idea.

Obviously.

I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and (perhaps most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't do that if they keep it hidden and allow their craziness to fester and grow and manifest in other ways.

Stop being afraid of words, folks. If you're so confident in your positions, you should welcome and encourage those words, take them head on, shine a nice, bright light on them.

Are you?
.

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What the PC Police choose to ignore about freedom of speech/expression is what is implicit:

Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery. It goes against the very spirit of the idea.

Obviously.

I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and (perhaps most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't do that if they keep it hidden and allow their craziness to fester and grow and manifest in other ways.

Stop being afraid of words, folks. If you're so confident in your positions, you should welcome and encourage those words, take them head on, shine a nice, bright light on them.

Are you?
.

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

 

[Mac1958]

What the PC Police choose to ignore about freedom of speech/expression is what is implicit:

Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery. It goes against the very spirit of the idea.

Obviously.

I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and (perhaps most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't do that if they keep it hidden and allow their craziness to fester and grow and manifest in other ways.

Stop being afraid of words, folks. If you're so confident in your positions, you should welcome and encourage those words, take them head on, shine a nice, bright light on them.

Are you?
.

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

I appear to the only person here who is beyond tired of simplistic, binary arguments.

No, that would pretty much be the standard approach, and I would happily join in.

What I would never do, however, is join in some kind of demonstration that would limit others from accessing that business or try to get the business owner fined or forcibly shut down or beaten up or somehow forced to serve that customer.

I'm going to guess that you won't see a distinction here, or that you will pretend not to (I'm never sure with hardcore partisan ideologues), so please don't expect me to try to explain it further.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What the PC Police choose to ignore about freedom of speech/expression is what is implicit:

Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery. It goes against the very spirit of the idea.

Obviously.

I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and (perhaps most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't do that if they keep it hidden and allow their craziness to fester and grow and manifest in other ways.

Stop being afraid of words, folks. If you're so confident in your positions, you should welcome and encourage those words, take them head on, shine a nice, bright light on them.

Are you?
.

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

I appear to the only person here who is beyond tired of simplistic, binary arguments.

No, that would pretty much be the standard approach, and I would happily join in.

What I would never do, however, is join in some kind of demonstration that would limit others from accessing that business or try to get the business owner fined or forcibly shut down or beaten up or somehow forced to serve that customer.

I'm going to guess that you won't see a distinction here, or that you will pretend not to (I'm never sure with hardcore partisan ideologues), so please don't expect me to try to explain it.
.

You made this statement:

"Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery."

A boycott is a consequence. According to you a boycott is thuggery.

 

[Mac1958]

What the PC Police choose to ignore about freedom of speech/expression is what is implicit:

Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery. It goes against the very spirit of the idea.

Obviously.

I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and (perhaps most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't do that if they keep it hidden and allow their craziness to fester and grow and manifest in other ways.

Stop being afraid of words, folks. If you're so confident in your positions, you should welcome and encourage those words, take them head on, shine a nice, bright light on them.

Are you?
.

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

I appear to the only person here who is beyond tired of simplistic, binary arguments.

No, that would pretty much be the standard approach, and I would happily join in.

What I would never do, however, is join in some kind of demonstration that would limit others from accessing that business or try to get the business owner fined or forcibly shut down or beaten up or somehow forced to serve that customer.

I'm going to guess that you won't see a distinction here, or that you will pretend not to (I'm never sure with hardcore partisan ideologues), so please don't expect me to try to explain it.
.

You made this statement:

"Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery."

A boycott is a consequence. According to you a boycott is thuggery.

Right on cue.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

I appear to the only person here who is beyond tired of simplistic, binary arguments.

No, that would pretty much be the standard approach, and I would happily join in.

What I would never do, however, is join in some kind of demonstration that would limit others from accessing that business or try to get the business owner fined or forcibly shut down or beaten up or somehow forced to serve that customer.

I'm going to guess that you won't see a distinction here, or that you will pretend not to (I'm never sure with hardcore partisan ideologues), so please don't expect me to try to explain it.
.

You made this statement:

"Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery."

A boycott is a consequence. According to you a boycott is thuggery.

Right on cue.
.

Are you denying you said it?

 

[Mac1958]

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

I appear to the only person here who is beyond tired of simplistic, binary arguments.

No, that would pretty much be the standard approach, and I would happily join in.

What I would never do, however, is join in some kind of demonstration that would limit others from accessing that business or try to get the business owner fined or forcibly shut down or beaten up or somehow forced to serve that customer.

I'm going to guess that you won't see a distinction here, or that you will pretend not to (I'm never sure with hardcore partisan ideologues), so please don't expect me to try to explain it.
.

You made this statement:

"Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery."

A boycott is a consequence. According to you a boycott is thuggery.

Right on cue.
.

Are you denying you said it?

I'm denying that I care enough about this conversation to continue.

You don't/won't understand my point, as I predicted.

Done.
.

 

[9aces]

What the PC Police choose to ignore about freedom of speech/expression is what is implicit:

Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery. It goes against the very spirit of the idea.

Obviously.

I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and (perhaps most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't do that if they keep it hidden and allow their craziness to fester and grow and manifest in other ways.

Stop being afraid of words, folks. If you're so confident in your positions, you should welcome and encourage those words, take them head on, shine a nice, bright light on them.

Are you?
.

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

People are free to buy from a business if they choose, or choose not to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What the PC Police choose to ignore about freedom of speech/expression is what is implicit:

Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery. It goes against the very spirit of the idea.

Obviously.

I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and (perhaps most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't do that if they keep it hidden and allow their craziness to fester and grow and manifest in other ways.

Stop being afraid of words, folks. If you're so confident in your positions, you should welcome and encourage those words, take them head on, shine a nice, bright light on them.

Are you?
.

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

People are free to buy from a business if they choose, or choose not to.

And should be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What the PC Police choose to ignore about freedom of speech/expression is what is implicit:

Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery. It goes against the very spirit of the idea.

Obviously.

I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and (perhaps most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't do that if they keep it hidden and allow their craziness to fester and grow and manifest in other ways.

Stop being afraid of words, folks. If you're so confident in your positions, you should welcome and encourage those words, take them head on, shine a nice, bright light on them.

Are you?
.

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

People are free to buy from a business if they choose, or choose not to.

Tell Mac. He's the one who called boycotts, in the sense that they can be the consequence of someone else's free speech, thuggery.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

I appear to the only person here who is beyond tired of simplistic, binary arguments.

No, that would pretty much be the standard approach, and I would happily join in.

What I would never do, however, is join in some kind of demonstration that would limit others from accessing that business or try to get the business owner fined or forcibly shut down or beaten up or somehow forced to serve that customer.

I'm going to guess that you won't see a distinction here, or that you will pretend not to (I'm never sure with hardcore partisan ideologues), so please don't expect me to try to explain it.
.

You made this statement:

"Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery."

A boycott is a consequence. According to you a boycott is thuggery.

Right on cue.
.

Are you denying you said it?

I'm denying that I care enough about this conversation to continue.

You don't/won't understand my point, as I predicted.

Done.
.

You called boycotts thuggery. Learn to use the English language and you won't have that problem in the future.

 

[irosie91]

Liberals are the power in the political realm....and they illustrate what Lord Action meant about power absolutely corrupting those who control it.



1." ...do any of you actually remember a time when liberals truly supported and believed in freedom of speech.... genuine,bona fide agreement with the principle that liberty includes allowing those with whom you disagree to have access to the marketplace of ideas, and that this marketplace itself will decide which are the best ones. You know, Voltaire's "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," and all that?

I can't either. Probably nobody can who was not born during or before World War II,



2.... those on the Left do not believe in free speech. They simply do not accept the fundamental principle that people of all opinions ought to be able to express those opinions without being punished for it, or at least hindered to the greatest degree possible in their ability to express themselves.



3. [Thus the] editorial in Harvard's student newspaper The Crimson, in which Sandra Korn, a student columnist and "women's studies" major (who didn't see that one coming?) obligingly calls for academic totalitarianism,

"Yet the liberal obsession with 'academic freedom" seems a bit misplaced to me. .... No academic question is ever 'free' from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of "academic freedom"?



"Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of 'academic justice. When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.



"The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly...


There, in a nutshell, is the modern liberal attitude toward freedom of speech, and by extension freedom of thought. If research doesn't substantiate the cultural goals and priorities of today's Neo-Fascists, then we must ensure that it "does not continue." Why liberals hate freedom of speech



If speech refutes the Left's positions on any number of issues, then it has to be silenced. "Academic justice" means suppression of all those naughty things that people might say that contradict us.


As far as speech is concerned, the Left definitely prefers a command economy over the free market.

sheeesh chic------you are getting into the "movie theatre on fire.....or not...."
debate ---------SPARE US (or me) You know that liberals are fuzzy wuzzy
and do not like to hurt anyone's feelings (FIRST---DO NO HARM)

 

[irosie91]

I appear to the only person here who is beyond tired of simplistic, binary arguments.

No, that would pretty much be the standard approach, and I would happily join in.

What I would never do, however, is join in some kind of demonstration that would limit others from accessing that business or try to get the business owner fined or forcibly shut down or beaten up or somehow forced to serve that customer.

I'm going to guess that you won't see a distinction here, or that you will pretend not to (I'm never sure with hardcore partisan ideologues), so please don't expect me to try to explain it.
.

You made this statement:

"Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery."

A boycott is a consequence. According to you a boycott is thuggery.

Right on cue.
.

Are you denying you said it?

I'm denying that I care enough about this conversation to continue.

You don't/won't understand my point, as I predicted.

Done.
.

You called boycotts thuggery. Learn to use the English language and you won't have that problem in the future.

some people do consider boycotts to be a form or thuggery

 

[bripat9643]

I hope everyone can read the message under FREE SPEECH in your pic.

Nope. Talk it up, dummies, it makes your stupidity that much easier to denounce.

Once upon a time there was this imbecile Liberal who admitted his antipathy to free speech....


"Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good." The Liberal Commitment.....

Oh...wait.....that was you!

Yep, and still true for people who say utterly stupid shit, like you.

Go to Hobby Lobby, buy a nice mirror, take a good look. You seem to need to realize the person looking back at you despises freedom, and really doesn't have the least clue what freedom is.

I don't tolerate the stupid well, neither do most liberals, including the Founders. Stupid people annoy us.

Don't waste your time invoking the founders because you have absolutely no relation to them.

 

[bripat9643]

What the PC Police choose to ignore about freedom of speech/expression is what is implicit:

Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery. It goes against the very spirit of the idea.

Obviously.

I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and (perhaps most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't do that if they keep it hidden and allow their craziness to fester and grow and manifest in other ways.

Stop being afraid of words, folks. If you're so confident in your positions, you should welcome and encourage those words, take them head on, shine a nice, bright light on them.

Are you?
.

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

Contributing to some group that opposes gay marriage is not sufficient justification for getting some CEO canned. It's thuggery.

I would add that the reason it's thuggery is because they are punishing the man simply because he has an opinion, not because he has done anything to warrant punishment. If he went on television and said god hates homosexuals, that might be a justification for punishment, but simply choosing to support one side or the other of a ballot initiative should be a right that every citizen can exercise.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What the PC Police choose to ignore about freedom of speech/expression is what is implicit:

Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery. It goes against the very spirit of the idea.

Obviously.

I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and (perhaps most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't do that if they keep it hidden and allow their craziness to fester and grow and manifest in other ways.

Stop being afraid of words, folks. If you're so confident in your positions, you should welcome and encourage those words, take them head on, shine a nice, bright light on them.

Are you?
.

Free speech has never meant free speech without consequences. You idiot.

Great example of my point, thanks.
.

So a business person expresses their hatred of gays, in one form or another, and the consequence is a massive boycott of their business.

No such thing has ever happened? No such thing should happen?

People are free to buy from a business if they choose, or choose not to.

Indeed.

A "massive boycott" was proposed against Chik-Fil-A. The company more than made up for any losses from the additional customers who bought their goods simply to show support for their right to hold a position.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Nope. Talk it up, dummies, it makes your stupidity that much easier to denounce.

Once upon a time there was this imbecile Liberal who admitted his antipathy to free speech....


"Think stupid, talk stupid, and we bury you, for your own good." The Liberal Commitment.....

Oh...wait.....that was you!

Yep, and still true for people who say utterly stupid shit, like you.

Go to Hobby Lobby, buy a nice mirror, take a good look. You seem to need to realize the person looking back at you despises freedom, and really doesn't have the least clue what freedom is.

I don't tolerate the stupid well, neither do most liberals, including the Founders. Stupid people annoy us.

Don't waste your time invoking the founders because you have absolutely no relation to them.

He does that a lot. It's funny.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You made this statement:

"Issuing "consequences" when someone dares to speak their mind is less free speech than it is thuggery."

A boycott is a consequence. According to you a boycott is thuggery.

Right on cue.
.

Are you denying you said it?

I'm denying that I care enough about this conversation to continue.

You don't/won't understand my point, as I predicted.

Done.
.

You called boycotts thuggery. Learn to use the English language and you won't have that problem in the future.

some people do consider boycotts to be a form or thuggery

That's because they're retards.