It's Obvious Where Stossel Stands - But Where Does Fox News Stand?

[Quantum Windbag]

So you think the solution is to cancel out our present anti-discrimination laws, allow businesses to discriminate, and then boycott those businesses for discriminating?

Isn't the whole idea to eliminate discrimination? If businesses are presently prevented from discriminating under the law, doesn't that pretty much take care of the problem?

This whole, right-wing rationalization for this "let the free market decide" green-light for going back to the 1960's makes me laugh. You folks are going to have to do a lot better than that.

If you want to talk about your principles, why not swing them into play and not allow discrimination in the first instance?

Does preventing businesses from discriminating eliminate the problem, or does it actually make the problem worse by removing common sense from the equation?

The Volokh Conspiracy - A (Very) Strange But True ACLU Case:

When civil rights can be used as an excuse to force a business to cater to blatant racial discrimination like this, it goes far beyond anything that any decent person wants, and just reinforces all those idiots who think think everyone on the left is a Nazi.

 

[George Costanza]

I'm sorry - I interpreted his comments on this issue as racist. Seems to me, anyone who is stumping for the "right" of private business to discriminate on any basis they choose, is espousing a position that opens the door for racial discrimination.

Your thoughts on that?

And a person who stumps for the right of a private individual to say anything they want is opening the door to hate speech.

Your thoughts on that? Should we restrict the right of free speech in order to stamp out hateful and offensive speech, or should we allow that speech in order that everyone have the right to speak truth to power?

The right to freedom of speech does not include the right to say anything you want. Slanderous remarks and criminal threats come to mind immediately. These are not protected by the right to freedom of speech.

"Hateful and offensive" remarks? What are those? You have created a red herring here. Way too broad a category.

 

[Modbert]

The right to freedom of speech does not include the right to say anything you want. Slanderous remarks and criminal threats come to mind immediately. These are not protected by the right to freedom of speech.

"Hateful and offensive" remarks? What are those? You have created a red herring here. Way too broad a category.

Indeed, because both of those infringe upon other's rights in society. Especially since slanderous remarks can damage one's reputation and criminal threats can threaten not only one's life but livelihood.

 

[sitarro]

Gee, I wonder what you guys think of BET, The United Negro College Fund, NAACP, Miss Black American, The Black Cultural Center of Purdue, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Ebony Queens Motorcycle Club, Circle Association, Black Graduate Engineering & Science Students of Berkley, Black Graduate Students Association of Stanford University, Trinity United Church Of Christ, etc., etc........... is the discrimination of these groups OK with you?

This is under "about us" on the Trinity United Church Of Christ website...... interesting reading on how to be segregated in America.

"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sorry - I interpreted his comments on this issue as racist. Seems to me, anyone who is stumping for the "right" of private business to discriminate on any basis they choose, is espousing a position that opens the door for racial discrimination.

Your thoughts on that?

And a person who stumps for the right of a private individual to say anything they want is opening the door to hate speech.

Your thoughts on that? Should we restrict the right of free speech in order to stamp out hateful and offensive speech, or should we allow that speech in order that everyone have the right to speak truth to power?

The right to freedom of speech does not include the right to say anything you want. Slanderous remarks and criminal threats come to mind immediately. These are not protected by the right to freedom of speech.

"Hateful and offensive" remarks? What are those? You have created a red herring here. Way too broad a category.

Freedom of speech does include slanderous remarks, if they are true. Nice little loophole most people miss.

It probably was a bit over broad, wasn't it? I know freedom of speech is not absolute, I just have a few freinds who keep insisting that free speech does not mean I can offend people indiscriminately. As people do not have a right not to be offended, I continue to offend them without consequences.

Do you support hate speech laws? Do you think people should be prohibited from saying things that target groups based on their religion, race, or national origin? In many countries I could be held criminally liable for saying Muslims are wrong if they do not admit that the Quran is as self contradictory as the Bible. It would not matter what my intent was, or even if what I could legally prove that I am right, it would still break the law.

 

[Modbert]

Freedom of speech does include slanderous remarks, if they are true. Nice little loophole most people miss.

LOL wut?

slander - definition of slander by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Law Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Freedom of speech does include slanderous remarks, if they are true. Nice little loophole most people miss.

LOL wut?

slander - definition of slander by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Law Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

People have been sued for slander and forced to defend themselves by proving what they said was true. I am sure that some have even been charged criminally by someone who had political power when the person making the remarks did not.

Besides, I used the word slanderous, not slander.

Adj.1.slanderous - (used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign

 

[Modbert]

People have been sued for slander and forced to defend themselves by proving what they said was true. I am sure that some have even been charged criminally by someone who had political power when the person making the remarks did not.

Besides, I used the word slanderous, not slander.

Adj.1.slanderous - (used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign

Yes, you used the word slanderous, which comes from the word slander. The word slander means false statements.

That's the thing about slander cases. Once they prove what they said is true, it's no longer slander.

 

[George Costanza]

People have been sued for slander and forced to defend themselves by proving what they said was true. I am sure that some have even been charged criminally by someone who had political power when the person making the remarks did not.

Besides, I used the word slanderous, not slander.

Adj.1.slanderous - (used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign

Yes, you used the word slanderous, which comes from the word slander. The word slander means false statements.

That's the thing about slander cases. Once they prove what they said is true, it's no longer slander.

You guys are parsing words here. You are also hijacking my thread. No offense.

 

[George Costanza]

As people do not have a right not to be offended, I continue to offend them without consequences.

You are correct that people do not have a right not to be offended. You are incorrect if you think you can do so without consequences. There are consequences to offending people: they think you are an asshole. (I am using "you" in the generic here - not calling YOU an asshole.)

Do you support hate speech laws? Do you think people should be prohibited from saying things that target groups based on their religion, race, or national origin? In many countries I could be held criminally liable for saying Muslims are wrong if they do not admit that the Quran is as self contradictory as the Bible. It would not matter what my intent was, or even if what I could legally prove that I am right, it would still break the law.

I am not familiar with hate speech laws. Do we have any in this country? I am familiar with so-called hate crime legislation, which I whole-heartedly support. I would have to know more about hate speech laws before being able to make a judgment.

But then, this thread isn't about any of that, now is it?

 

[George Costanza]

Gee, I wonder what you guys think of BET, The United Negro College Fund, NAACP, Miss Black American, The Black Cultural Center of Purdue, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Ebony Queens Motorcycle Club, Circle Association, Black Graduate Engineering & Science Students of Berkley, Black Graduate Students Association of Stanford University, Trinity United Church Of Christ, etc., etc........... is the discrimination of these groups OK with you?

This is under "about us" on the Trinity United Church Of Christ website...... interesting reading on how to be segregated in America.

"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community."

Not the same thing as a business discriminating.

 

[del]

I'm sorry - I interpreted his comments on this issue as racist. Seems to me, anyone who is stumping for the "right" of private business to discriminate on any basis they choose, is espousing a position that opens the door for racial discrimination.

Your thoughts on that?

And a person who stumps for the right of a private individual to say anything they want is opening the door to hate speech.

Your thoughts on that? Should we restrict the right of free speech in order to stamp out hateful and offensive speech, or should we allow that speech in order that everyone have the right to speak truth to power?

The right to freedom of speech does not include the right to say anything you want. Slanderous remarks and criminal threats come to mind immediately. These are not protected by the right to freedom of speech.

"Hateful and offensive" remarks? What are those? You have created a red herring here. Way too broad a category.

there's a lot of that going around in this thread, mr kettle.

 

[George Costanza]

And a person who stumps for the right of a private individual to say anything they want is opening the door to hate speech.

Your thoughts on that? Should we restrict the right of free speech in order to stamp out hateful and offensive speech, or should we allow that speech in order that everyone have the right to speak truth to power?

The right to freedom of speech does not include the right to say anything you want. Slanderous remarks and criminal threats come to mind immediately. These are not protected by the right to freedom of speech.

"Hateful and offensive" remarks? What are those? You have created a red herring here. Way too broad a category.

there's a lot of that going around in this thread, mr kettle.

Example, please?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am not familiar with hate speech laws. Do we have any in this country? I am familiar with so-called hate crime legislation, which I whole-heartedly support. I would have to know more about hate speech laws before being able to make a judgment.

But then, this thread isn't about any of that, now is it?

How is defending the right of a person to discriminate if they want to any different than defending the right of a person to use racist language? The latter does not make one a racist, why should the former? If I open a Chinese restaurant that refuses to serve anyone born in Taiwan does that make me a racist?

 

[Polk]

Bullshit.

Stossel is no racist. He's a libertarian. And Media Matters is on a mission to smear.

I'm sorry - I interpreted his comments on this issue as racist. Seems to me, anyone who is stumping for the "right" of private business to discriminate on any basis they choose, is espousing a position that opens the door for racial discrimination.

Your thoughts on that?

Yes, it opens the door to racial discrimination without legal remedy, but as Modbert points out (and as I pointed out on a similar thread) the public would readily know where NOT to spend their money.

So it's not that libertarians are racist, it's that they're hopelessly naive.

 

[California Girl]

From what I'm getting here, many of you folks actually AGREE with Stossel.

Incredible.

Yea, that's cuz we're actually considerably smarter than you. We want racists out in the open, where we can see them and deal with them. We don't want them hiding and getting our money. I won't knowingly do business with racists..... so, yea, I'd be happy for businesses to be able to discriminate.

That you don't get it is what I find 'incredible'.

 

[Zona]

From what I'm getting here, many of you folks actually AGREE with Stossel.

Incredible.

Yea, that's cuz we're actually considerably smarter than you. We want racists out in the open, where we can see them and deal with them. We don't want them hiding and getting our money. I won't knowingly do business with racists..... so, yea, I'd be happy for businesses to be able to discriminate.

That you don't get it is what I find 'incredible'.

Cali Girl, I agree, it is better if you are out in the open.

 

[sitarro]

From what I'm getting here, many of you folks actually AGREE with Stossel.

Incredible.

Yea, that's cuz we're actually considerably smarter than you. We want racists out in the open, where we can see them and deal with them. We don't want them hiding and getting our money. I won't knowingly do business with racists..... so, yea, I'd be happy for businesses to be able to discriminate.

That you don't get it is what I find 'incredible'.

Cali Girl, I agree, it is better if you are out in the open.

Says the ass wipe with a Nazi flag in his avatar. You're an imbecile Zona, I have seen actual parrots with more intelligence than you possess.

 

[sitarro]

Gee, I wonder what you guys think of BET, The United Negro College Fund, NAACP, Miss Black American, The Black Cultural Center of Purdue, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Ebony Queens Motorcycle Club, Circle Association, Black Graduate Engineering & Science Students of Berkley, Black Graduate Students Association of Stanford University, Trinity United Church Of Christ, etc., etc........... is the discrimination of these groups OK with you?

This is under "about us" on the Trinity United Church Of Christ website...... interesting reading on how to be segregated in America.

"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community."

Not the same thing as a business discriminating.

Oh.......... so what you are actually saying is that these examples are just fine because you can depend on all of these racist shit organizations to push for, cheat for, and pay for the Democrat vote....... no matter who is running....... check. You might ad the assholes in the Black Panthers to those groups that you have no problem with. Here are some outstanding Democrats keeping it "real"..........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN5StQAr7n0&feature=related]YouTube - exterminate white people[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qutULJOOEU&feature=related]YouTube - Black Panthers[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tol0gdUzpPk&feature=fvw]YouTube - New Black Panther Party[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU&feature=related]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]



How about these Dems?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV0u2BKqerY&feature=related]YouTube - Pt 1/13 Crackers presidents and earthquakes[/ame]

 

[LuckyDan]

I'm sorry - I interpreted his comments on this issue as racist. Seems to me, anyone who is stumping for the "right" of private business to discriminate on any basis they choose, is espousing a position that opens the door for racial discrimination.

Your thoughts on that?

Yes, it opens the door to racial discrimination without legal remedy, but as Modbert points out (and as I pointed out on a similar thread) the public would readily know where NOT to spend their money.

So it's not that libertarians are racist, it's that they're hopelessly naive.

Naivte is the liberal's realm: He thinks he can eliminate evil by outlawing it.