Freedom of Speech: Where's the Line?

[Wildman]

Free speech should not allow the call for dead cops by protesters....
But then we get into the whole free speech issue.
Who decides what should be allowed.

I was pissed when I saw the video in NYC calling for dead cops.
But I'm against trying to find someone who is appointed to decide what should be allowed.
Unless it's presented to the Supreme Court after going through the system....

I just wish people would think a bit before running off at the mouth.

zxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxz
"Unless it's presented to the Supreme Court"

that too might be a big mistake considering the S.C. decision on the Bammycare being a tax and not a fee.

 

[Mac1958]

Excellent piece in Politico:
The Worldwide War Against Free Speech - Flemming Rose - POLITICO Magazine
"Grievance fundamentalism, and the belief that a thought police can create an offense-free world that will be better..."
"Grievance fundamentalism". Perfect.

So let's take his last part: "But the only right we do not and should not have in a liberal democracy is a right not to be offended. Instead of sending people to sensitivity training when they say something insensitive, we all need insensitivity training. We all need thicker skins if freedom of speech is to survive in the age of grievance fundamentalism."
Read more: The Worldwide War Against Free Speech - Flemming Rose - POLITICO Magazine

Great. Now you tell me why on this very site, people are not only offended by what I say, they are offended that I breath. They don't want to hear what bothers them, they use the ignore button like a small child with fingers suck in their ears. Care to jump that one Mac?

Again, I'm not sure what your point is, but I'll try.

Modern day hardcore partisan ideologues are so full of hate and rage and narcissism that yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if they are offended by the fact that you breathe. They exist in their little ideological vacuum and have trained themselves at a fundamental level to attack anything that comes near it, as viciously as they possibly can. They are, in short, virtually impossible to communicate with at any level of depth.

I wonder if you noticed that I didn't specify right wing or left wing.

Then, when you combine this type of ideological fundamentalism with (in this case) Political Correctness, you have a world in which people are becoming more and more afraid and intimidated from speaking what's on their mind, because a merry band of narcissistic PC Police will not only disagree with them, they will do everything they can to punish them and intimidate them from doing it again.

Plenty of examples on this thread and on this board, every day.

.

 

[zeke]

"But the only right we do not and should not have in a liberal democracy is a right not to be offended. Instead of sending people to sensitivity training when they say something insensitive, we all need insensitivity training. We all need thicker skins if freedom of speech is to survive in the age of grievance fundamentalism."

Damn, we used to live in a world where words mattered. And there was consequences to a persons words and people KNEW there were consequences.

Now the right wingers like Mac want everybody to simply become insensitive to whatever happens to be said about you, yours or whatever else people want to say things about.

I guess people can do that, however, if they start trash talking my mom, things are gonna get ugly fast.

But then again, I thought the right wingers purpose in having everybody carrying a gun was to make for a more respectful, peaceful society. You know, peace and respect at the barrel of a gun.

I got a feeling that having everyone say whatever they want whenever they want to might not contribute to that more peaceful society. Especially if the person being insulted in carrying a gun.

 

[zeke]

Plenty of examples on this thread and on this board, every day.

Really? Who are the PC police on this message board and who did they go after? What power has been granted to the PC police?

Hey Mac, maybe you could/should follow the advice of that article. Quit being so SENSITIVE. Find yourself some "insensitivity" training and take it. You will feel better in the morning.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This, kiddos, is Free Speech and it is a Liberal Ideal.

 

[zeke]

Damn, I keep forgetting that MY speech to Mac had become so objectionable to Mac that he had to put me on ignore months ago.

Is that an example of your tolerance for free speech Mac?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Again, I'm not sure what your point is, but I'll try.

Modern day hardcore partisan ideologues are so full of hate and rage and narcissism....
.

You've morphed into a hardcore partisan ideologue against what you have labeled the PC Police.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The way I see it, free speech goes both ways. You can attack me as hard as you want, and I can attack back as hard as I want.

Suppressing the reply is every bit as bad as suppressing the original speech. Yup, it's messy. But IMHO it is worth it.

There is a clear difference between expressing an opposing opinion and trying to damage or destroy someone for expressing theirs.

.

You mean the way you've been trying to blame peaceful protestors for killing the two cops in NYC.

Another lie of yours, but I've become used to it.

What's the point of your constantly lying?

.

No one is 'lying,' you've contrived and sought to propagate the lie that the protesters and those critical of the police are somehow 'responsible' for the killing of the two NYC police officers...

That is simply an incontrovertible fact... of the non-debatable variety.

It's non-debatable that the protests caused the killing?

Then why can't you back that accusation up with any credible evidence?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The constitution says FREE SPEECH. You are for the constitution, right, luddly? Cuz if you don't, you are supposedly a right winger, right? So....why are you trying to shut people up when it is their RIGHT to state what they think/believe? I know why. You don't agree with it. Therefore....HUSH. amirite? Yep. iamrite.

You're wrong, as usual.

Free speech refers only to the relationship between the government and citizens, placing restrictions on government to seek to preempt or restrict the free expression of citizens.

It does not apply to the relationship of private persons in the context of a private venue such as an online message board, where it's perfectly appropriate to denounce the hate speech of racists, and for message board administrators to edit or delete speech determined offensive or inappropriate.

Private citizens in the context of private society, therefore, determine what is or is not appropriate speech, and set the rules and boundaries accordingly.

This, then, is the fundamental nature of a truly free and democratic society, where private citizens alone determine what is or isn't appropriate speech – absent unwarranted interference from politicians, bureaucrats, and the courts.

True... but within the context of the private citizens, one does not have a right to deceitfully or to intentionally, inaccurately describe another who denounces the policy advocacies of a racial minority, representing that person as a racist. As this impugns the person, seeks to damage their credibility, thus represents the attempt to injure an innocent.

Like being called anti-Semitic when one disagrees with Israeli policy...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is a clear difference between expressing an opposing opinion and trying to damage or destroy someone for expressing theirs.

.

You mean the way you've been trying to blame peaceful protestors for killing the two cops in NYC.

Another lie of yours, but I've become used to it.

What's the point of your constantly lying?

.

No one is 'lying,' you've contrived and sought to propagate the lie that the protesters and those critical of the police are somehow 'responsible' for the killing of the two NYC police officers...

That is simply an incontrovertible fact... of the non-debatable variety.

It's non-debatable that the protests caused the killing?

Then why can't you back that accusation up with any credible evidence?

The evidence is not only credible, it is self evident... And that you need to simply reduce from the evidence the prolonged steeping of MONTHS of Vile Speech condemning the good men and woman of Law enforcement as criminals intent upon injuring the innocent, because of the color of their skin...

IS PRICELESS!

 

[NYcarbineer]

You mean the way you've been trying to blame peaceful protestors for killing the two cops in NYC.

Another lie of yours, but I've become used to it.

What's the point of your constantly lying?

.

No one is 'lying,' you've contrived and sought to propagate the lie that the protesters and those critical of the police are somehow 'responsible' for the killing of the two NYC police officers...

That is simply an incontrovertible fact... of the non-debatable variety.

It's non-debatable that the protests caused the killing?

Then why can't you back that accusation up with any credible evidence?

The evidence is not only credible, it is self evident... And that you need to simply reduce from the evidence the prolonged steeping of MONTHS of Vile Speech condemning the good men and woman of Law enforcement as criminals intent upon injuring the innocent, because of the color of their skin...

IS PRICELESS!

That's not evidence. That is you trying to cover up the fact that you have no evidence.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Another lie of yours, but I've become used to it.

What's the point of your constantly lying?

.

No one is 'lying,' you've contrived and sought to propagate the lie that the protesters and those critical of the police are somehow 'responsible' for the killing of the two NYC police officers...

That is simply an incontrovertible fact... of the non-debatable variety.

It's non-debatable that the protests caused the killing?

Then why can't you back that accusation up with any credible evidence?

The evidence is not only credible, it is self evident... And that you need to simply reduce from the evidence the prolonged steeping of MONTHS of Vile Speech condemning the good men and woman of Law enforcement as criminals intent upon injuring the innocent, because of the color of their skin...

IS PRICELESS!

That's not evidence. That is you trying to cover up the fact that you have no evidence.

Oh! So the historical record cannot be accepted as Evidence?

.

.

.

ROFLMNAO!

Anyone need anything else?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Like being called anti-Semitic when one disagrees with Israeli policy...

You're speaking of your opposition to official state policy, which by its very nature defends the means of Jewish people to exist as a Jewish State, to govern themselves as they will? Policy which does nothing except defend Jewish life and the lives of other Semitics and other races of other nationalities who come to live peacefully in Israel?

So ... you're asking me if your contest of the Right of Jews to defend themselves from those sworn to erase the Jewish Religion, the Jewish People... as a race, to the last man, woman and child... is an indicator that you have an irrational fear of Jews, which causes you to hate them, as a people... as a culture, as a nation to the extent that by your public professions you tacitly endorse and otherwise promote their destruction; you want to know if THAT makes you antisemitic?

It's getting REALLY difficult to allow you to remain on this side of the free speech wall.

If you can improve your means to reason, please do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one is 'lying,' you've contrived and sought to propagate the lie that the protesters and those critical of the police are somehow 'responsible' for the killing of the two NYC police officers...

That is simply an incontrovertible fact... of the non-debatable variety.

It's non-debatable that the protests caused the killing?

Then why can't you back that accusation up with any credible evidence?

The evidence is not only credible, it is self evident... And that you need to simply reduce from the evidence the prolonged steeping of MONTHS of Vile Speech condemning the good men and woman of Law enforcement as criminals intent upon injuring the innocent, because of the color of their skin...

IS PRICELESS!

That's not evidence. That is you trying to cover up the fact that you have no evidence.

Oh! So the historical record cannot be accepted as Evidence?

.

.

.

ROFLMNAO!

Anyone need anything else?

What historical record? You keep jabbering about record of evidence that proves cause and effect to cop killings and yet you never cite any of it.

What verbal attacks on law enforcement killed the 2 cops in Las Vegas earlier this year? The two who were killed by rightwing anti-government extremists.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Like being called anti-Semitic when one disagrees with Israeli policy...

You're speaking of your opposition to official state policy, which by its very nature defends the means of Jewish people to exist as a Jewish State, to govern themselves as they will? Policy which does nothing except defend Jewish life and the lives of other Semitics and other races of other nationalities who come to live peacefully in Israel?

So ... you're asking me if your contest of the Right of Jews to defend themselves from those sworn to erase the Jewish Religion, the Jewish People... as a race, to the last man, woman and child... is an indicator that you have an irrational fear of Jews, which causes you to hate them, as a people... as a culture, as a nation to the extent that by your public professions you tacitly endorse and otherwise promote their destruction; you want to know if THAT makes you antisemitic?

It's getting REALLY difficult to allow you to remain on this side of the free speech wall.

If you can improve your means to reason, please do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

The line on freedom of speech is basically the same as any line on any freedom: you don't get to use it to violate someone else's freedoms and space. You can say what you like, but you don't get to defame another's character, or harass them, or endanger them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you get fired for telling your boss to kiss your ass, that's NOT a free Speech issue.

What if your boss is the President?

If the President's secretary tells him to kiss her ass, then she's going to get fired. Same as anyone else. If she goes public in an interview as the President's secretary and says he's an asshole, she's probably also going to get fired. Same as anyone else who does the same where his/her employer is concerned.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Free speech should not allow the call for dead cops by protesters....
But then we get into the whole free speech issue.
Who decides what should be allowed.

I was pissed when I saw the video in NYC calling for dead cops.
But I'm against trying to find someone who is appointed to decide what should be allowed.
Unless it's presented to the Supreme Court after going through the system....

I just wish people would think a bit before running off at the mouth.

The law decides. Our laws say that you can talk about how much you dislike any group, but you cannot advocate harming them or in any other way violating their rights to life, liberty, and property. Society decided long ago that inciting crimes did not fall under the heading of free speech. It amazes me that somehow, this has now become confusing to people.

 

[jasonnfree]

While there is a right to speak there is no right to be heard. There is no right to stop traffic to force people to listen. There is no right to invade a mall so that the captive audience is forced to listen. There is no right to raise awareness in those that have no desire to listen. There is a right to shout on the municipal steps. There is no right to block the doors so you can be heard.

I don't think protesters should be allowed to disrupt commerce,block traffic,show up at stores and not allow
people who want to spend the evening living their lives.
They should apply in advance of their protest to the local police and get a permit....

Then protest their fucking asses off if they so do desire.

Mayor De Blasio is out of his fucking mind allowing the recent protests in NYC to go on as they did.

The original American patriots who threw tea into the water in Boston harbor were disrupting commerce, which you of course disapprove of. The right wing members on this board would be calling for their heads. "Get Paul Revere, Sam Adams, and that progressive son of a whore John Hancock" would be the new conservative battle cry.

 

[Cecilie1200]

While there is a right to speak there is no right to be heard. There is no right to stop traffic to force people to listen. There is no right to invade a mall so that the captive audience is forced to listen. There is no right to raise awareness in those that have no desire to listen. There is a right to shout on the municipal steps. There is no right to block the doors so you can be heard.

I don't think protesters should be allowed to disrupt commerce,block traffic,show up at stores and not allow
people who want to spend the evening living their lives.
They should apply in advance of their protest to the local police and get a permit....

Then protest their fucking asses off if they so do desire.

Mayor De Blasio is out of his fucking mind allowing the recent protests in NYC to go on as they did.

The original American patriots who threw tea into the water in Boston harbor were disrupting commerce, which you of course disapprove of. The right wing members on this board would be calling for their heads. "Get Paul Revere, Sam Adams, and that progressive son of a whore John Hancock" would be the new conservative battle cry.

Does it bother you that you know less about genuine American history than my six-year-old has gleaned from watching "Schoolhouse Rock"? I'm not saying SHR isn't excellent for kids, but really, shouldn't an adult have a more in-depth and detailed knowledge of what he's talking about before spewing?

Most of "the original American patriots" - meaning the leaders of the American Revolution - disapproved of the Boston Tea Party. They viewed it as an embarrassing descent into mob behavior which did more to damage their cause than to help it. Benjamin Franklin even demanded that the India Tea Company be reimbursed. Also, although Sam Adams publicly defended the act afterward, and he and the others were members of the "Sons of Liberty", it is by no means proven that any of those three actually took part. For obvious reasons, none of the participants were eager to brag about it, and many of them took the secret of their involvement to the grave. It is known that in the aftermath, Paul Revere punished a participant who stole some of the tea, which is a bit different from your modern-day "heroes" and their widespread looting, no?

Furthermore, Sam Adams only endorsed this protest because other means of redress - such as voting - were not available. I note that this is not the case with any of the rampaging savages you so admire.