The Value of Free Speech

[TemplarKormac]

Remember the Chik-Fil-A boycott a few months ago? They made more money the day of the boycott than usual, people lined up for hours to get a sandwich. If you think that is punishment could you punish me by sending me all your money?

Yes, because a counter demonstration was quickly thrown together to offset what was intended as a punishment for Chick-fil-a. And it produced record sales for Chick-fil-a across the country.

The demonstration, however, was for no other reason than the CEO of Chick-fil-a expressed an opinion that the demonstrators disagreed with. I don't care what the subject is, it is wrong to try to punish a person for no other reason than you disagree with them.

The U.S. boycott of South Africa was not for opinions they held, but for actions that were denying other people their unalienable rights. Unfortunately, for most South Africans, the boycott was successful and corrected some injustices, but also escalated numerous problems . It would be difficult to say that South Africans, on average, are better off now than they were then. But at least they had a choice to make their country what it is. Once Apartheid was dismantled, all sanctions and boycotts were lifted.

An organized boycott of the Nestle Corporation was not for opinions they held, but to demand that they cease and desist from unethical marketing practices that were having a devastating affect on some of Africa's poorest citizens. Once Nestle ceased that unconscionable practice, we all started buying Nestle products again.

There is a huge difference in legitimate protests to object to somebody who is hurting somebody else and in trying to financially harm somebody purely because you disagree with their opinion about something.

I think we just dont agree is all. Let me ask you this. If a person is voicing their opinion and a crowd acts on the opinion of that person and burns your house to the ground is it wrong to punish that person?

It would appear to me this person has already been silenced. Wrongly. Through violence.

 

[Asclepias]

Plus he didn't provide a source for his definition. I couldn't find one that used the term "punishment"--I posted the more common definitions I did find earlier today.

An organized boycott to protest unethical or dangerous practices is usually well intended and sometimes is effective.

An organized boycott to protest somebody's opinion is not ethical or honorable and is a dangerous thing. If it is conducted with the intention of punishing or destroying the person for no other reason than the person holds an opinion the boycotters don't share, it is evil.

A secondary boycott; i.e. trying to intimidate or coerce or threaten a person's customers, suppliers, or advertisers so that they won't do business with somebody violates federal fair trade laws and is also illegal in all 50 states. When it happens anyway, for no reason other than the boycotters don't like somebody's opinion, it is evil.

Well I did. All you have to do is type the word boycott in your google webpage and its the frist thing to come up. Weird how that works huh? But for those that need proof here you go.

boycott: definition of boycott in Oxford dictionary - American English (US)

If a public official or business person is espousing a stupid, racist opinion (which is evil) then they deserve to be punished by having their livelihood destroyed as a consequence of being stupid enough to voice that opinion.

Well your opinion holds water if you despise the U.S. Constitution, reject the concept of unalienable rights, and wish to do away with all the values of liberty that the First Amendment embodies.

I guess my interpretation holds water then because no where have I said they should not be able to voice their opinion. I simply state they should not be immune from others voicing their opinions and dealing with the consequences created by their actions.

 

[Foxfyre]

Remember the Chik-Fil-A boycott a few months ago? They made more money the day of the boycott than usual, people lined up for hours to get a sandwich. If you think that is punishment could you punish me by sending me all your money?

Yes, because a counter demonstration was quickly thrown together to offset what was intended as a punishment for Chick-fil-a. And it produced record sales for Chick-fil-a across the country.

The demonstration, however, was for no other reason than the CEO of Chick-fil-a expressed an opinion that the demonstrators disagreed with. I don't care what the subject is, it is wrong to try to punish a person for no other reason than you disagree with them.

The U.S. boycott of South Africa was not for opinions they held, but for actions that were denying other people their unalienable rights. Unfortunately, for most South Africans, the boycott was successful and corrected some injustices, but also escalated numerous problems . It would be difficult to say that South Africans, on average, are better off now than they were then. But at least they had a choice to make their country what it is. Once Apartheid was dismantled, all sanctions and boycotts were lifted.

An organized boycott of the Nestle Corporation was not for opinions they held, but to demand that they cease and desist from unethical marketing practices that were having a devastating affect on some of Africa's poorest citizens. Once Nestle ceased that unconscionable practice, we all started buying Nestle products again.

There is a huge difference in legitimate protests to object to somebody who is hurting somebody else and in trying to financially harm somebody purely because you disagree with their opinion about something.

I think we just dont agree is all. Let me ask you this. If a person is voicing their opinion and a crowd acts on the opinion of that person and burns your house to the ground is it wrong to silence that person?

If the crowd burns your house to the ground because they disagree with somebody, it is the crowd that is in the wrong, not the person speaking. So, no, it is not okay to silence anybody purely for expressing an opinion.

If the person was trying to stir up the crowd and promote acts of violence, yes, the person can be silenced. It is illegal to incite a riot.

If gay people and/or gay rights advocates burn down your house because the CEO of Chick-fil-a supports traditional marriage--which is exactly what all that flap was about--the gay people or gay rights advocates should land in prison for a very long time. It is their fault for denying the CEO his rights, and not the other way around.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes, because a counter demonstration was quickly thrown together to offset what was intended as a punishment for Chick-fil-a. And it produced record sales for Chick-fil-a across the country.

The demonstration, however, was for no other reason than the CEO of Chick-fil-a expressed an opinion that the demonstrators disagreed with. I don't care what the subject is, it is wrong to try to punish a person for no other reason than you disagree with them.

The U.S. boycott of South Africa was not for opinions they held, but for actions that were denying other people their unalienable rights. Unfortunately, for most South Africans, the boycott was successful and corrected some injustices, but also escalated numerous problems . It would be difficult to say that South Africans, on average, are better off now than they were then. But at least they had a choice to make their country what it is. Once Apartheid was dismantled, all sanctions and boycotts were lifted.

An organized boycott of the Nestle Corporation was not for opinions they held, but to demand that they cease and desist from unethical marketing practices that were having a devastating affect on some of Africa's poorest citizens. Once Nestle ceased that unconscionable practice, we all started buying Nestle products again.

There is a huge difference in legitimate protests to object to somebody who is hurting somebody else and in trying to financially harm somebody purely because you disagree with their opinion about something.

I think we just dont agree is all. Let me ask you this. If a person is voicing their opinion and a crowd acts on the opinion of that person and burns your house to the ground is it wrong to punish that person?

It would appear to me this person has already been silenced. Wrongly. Through violence.

Keep up Temple. The person that originally voiced the opinion that caused people to burn down your home. In your case, the government voicing their opinion that Native Americans are savages thus unfit to own land. This results in the takeover of native american lands. Is it wrong for a native american to do their best to paint the government in a bad light?

 

[Asclepias]

Yes, because a counter demonstration was quickly thrown together to offset what was intended as a punishment for Chick-fil-a. And it produced record sales for Chick-fil-a across the country.

The demonstration, however, was for no other reason than the CEO of Chick-fil-a expressed an opinion that the demonstrators disagreed with. I don't care what the subject is, it is wrong to try to punish a person for no other reason than you disagree with them.

The U.S. boycott of South Africa was not for opinions they held, but for actions that were denying other people their unalienable rights. Unfortunately, for most South Africans, the boycott was successful and corrected some injustices, but also escalated numerous problems . It would be difficult to say that South Africans, on average, are better off now than they were then. But at least they had a choice to make their country what it is. Once Apartheid was dismantled, all sanctions and boycotts were lifted.

An organized boycott of the Nestle Corporation was not for opinions they held, but to demand that they cease and desist from unethical marketing practices that were having a devastating affect on some of Africa's poorest citizens. Once Nestle ceased that unconscionable practice, we all started buying Nestle products again.

There is a huge difference in legitimate protests to object to somebody who is hurting somebody else and in trying to financially harm somebody purely because you disagree with their opinion about something.

I think we just dont agree is all. Let me ask you this. If a person is voicing their opinion and a crowd acts on the opinion of that person and burns your house to the ground is it wrong to silence that person?

If the crowd burns your house to the ground because they disagree with somebody, it is the crowd that is in the wrong, not the person speaking. So, no, it is not okay to silence anybody purely for expressing an opinion.

If the person was trying to stir up the crowd and promote acts of violence, yes, the person can be silenced. It is illegal to incite a riot.

If gay people and/or gay rights advocates burn down your house because the CEO of Chick-fil-a supports traditional marriage--which is exactly what all that flap was about--the gay people or gay rights advocates should land in prison for a very long time. It is their fault for denying the CEO his rights, and not the other way around.

Isn't inciting a riot an expression of an opinion? What if that person did not incite a riot but picked a shop and told the crowd the owner was a child molester and to not frequent the shop. As a result the owner lost their business. Should the person causing this by expressing their opinion be immune from public back lash when it is later found out that the shop owner had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend on his 18th birthday?

 

[Steven_R]

I think we just dont agree is all. Let me ask you this. If a person is voicing their opinion and a crowd acts on the opinion of that person and burns your house to the ground is it wrong to punish that person?

It would appear to me this person has already been silenced. Wrongly. Through violence.

Keep up Temple. The person that originally voiced the opinion that caused people to burn down your home. In your case, the government voicing their opinion that Native Americans are savages thus unfit to own land. This results in the takeover of native american lands. Is it wrong for a native american to do their best to paint the government in a bad light?

The Indian that lost his home? Maybe not. The great great great great grandchild who never met that Indian and who never lost anything? Yeah, he needs to get over it. IT didn't happen to him and he has no claim on that righteous indignation.

 

[Asclepias]

It would appear to me this person has already been silenced. Wrongly. Through violence.

Keep up Temple. The person that originally voiced the opinion that caused people to burn down your home. In your case, the government voicing their opinion that Native Americans are savages thus unfit to own land. This results in the takeover of native american lands. Is it wrong for a native american to do their best to paint the government in a bad light?

The Indian that lost his home? Maybe not. The great great great great grandchild who never met that Indian and who never lost anything? Yeah, he needs to get over it. IT didn't happen to him and he has no claim on that righteous indignation.

But he did lose something I would have thought would have been obvious to even the clueless. He no longer has the land his forefathers would have passed on to him. Anyway your interpretation of the question is way off base. I'm talking present tense.

 

[Steven_R]

There's no guarantee that land would have been passed on to him in any event. He has no claim to injury because of something that happened to other people before he was born. My Irish ancestors that came here were lower than dogs. Sucks for them, but it isn't a pain I have.

I don't feel bad about injuries I never had, even if those injuries happened to someone I'm related to (and never met).
I don't feel guilty over the offenses of my ancestors.
I don't expect thanks for the good deeds of my ancestors.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think we just dont agree is all. Let me ask you this. If a person is voicing their opinion and a crowd acts on the opinion of that person and burns your house to the ground is it wrong to punish that person?

It would appear to me this person has already been silenced. Wrongly. Through violence.

Keep up Temple. The person that originally voiced the opinion that caused people to burn down your home. In your case, the government voicing their opinion that Native Americans are savages thus unfit to own land. This results in the takeover of native american lands. Is it wrong for a native american to do their best to paint the government in a bad light?

Spare me your discombobulated arguments and analogies. You make no sense whatsoever. Why would my home have anything to do with the opinion? That's ludicrous! Even a crazed mob wouldn't be that stupid.

And now you are crossing a line chastising my people. We have every right to badmouth this government. It has my brethren cooped up in reservations and whatnot. No it isn't wrong for them to paint them in a bad light. The government is responsible for driving the Native American peoples into near extinction. But like I said earlier, it is people like you continuing to remind the black man of the wrongs committed against his ancestors and how to use that past as a weapon to call anyone today a racist simply for disagreeing with them.

 

[daveman]

Yes, because a counter demonstration was quickly thrown together to offset what was intended as a punishment for Chick-fil-a. And it produced record sales for Chick-fil-a across the country.

 

[Asclepias]

It would appear to me this person has already been silenced. Wrongly. Through violence.

Keep up Temple. The person that originally voiced the opinion that caused people to burn down your home. In your case, the government voicing their opinion that Native Americans are savages thus unfit to own land. This results in the takeover of native american lands. Is it wrong for a native american to do their best to paint the government in a bad light?

Spare me your discombobulated arguments and analogies. You make no sense whatsoever. Why would my home have anything to do with the opinion? That's ludicrous! Even a crazed mob wouldn't be that stupid.

And now you are crossing a line chastising my people. We have every right to badmouth this government. It has my brethren cooped up in reservations and whatnot. No it isn't wrong for them to paint them in a bad light. The government is responsible for driving the Native American peoples into near extinction. But like I said earlier, it is people like you continuing to remind the black man of the wrongs committed against his ancestors and how to use that past as a weapon to call anyone today a racist simply for disagreeing with them.

So it only bothers you when someone that is not native american does it? I see. Do you see the ghettos as urban reservations? I do. The same mental conditions that exist on the reservations also exist in the ghettos. Fuck you and spare me your self righteousness please

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Right after you tell me who is the judge of what constitutes "real damage" and why you had to use a qualifier? Also right after you admit you were wrong about a boycott being a punishment.

Judge it yourself, I don't give a fuck. Just be prepared to provide evidence of the damage, not the fake damage that comes from the punishment of a boycott.

When was the last time the KKK did any real damage?

Please answer the second part of my question and while you are at it please quote where I opposed a boycott of South Africa. Your lies need to be addressed first.

I am not going to answer your questions because your questions are a result of you not wanting to admit that the KKK is impotent. This lets you pretend that they control the universe so you can pretend that your racism is justified.

Newsflash, even if they did, you would still be wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Remember the Chik-Fil-A boycott a few months ago? They made more money the day of the boycott than usual, people lined up for hours to get a sandwich. If you think that is punishment could you punish me by sending me all your money?

Yes, because a counter demonstration was quickly thrown together to offset what was intended as a punishment for Chick-fil-a. And it produced record sales for Chick-fil-a across the country.

The demonstration, however, was for no other reason than the CEO of Chick-fil-a expressed an opinion that the demonstrators disagreed with. I don't care what the subject is, it is wrong to try to punish a person for no other reason than you disagree with them.

The U.S. boycott of South Africa was not for opinions they held, but for actions that were denying other people their unalienable rights. Unfortunately, for most South Africans, the boycott was successful and corrected some injustices, but also escalated numerous problems . It would be difficult to say that South Africans, on average, are better off now than they were then. But at least they had a choice to make their country what it is. Once Apartheid was dismantled, all sanctions and boycotts were lifted.

An organized boycott of the Nestle Corporation was not for opinions they held, but to demand that they cease and desist from unethical marketing practices that were having a devastating affect on some of Africa's poorest citizens. Once Nestle ceased that unconscionable practice, we all started buying Nestle products again.

There is a huge difference in legitimate protests to object to somebody who is hurting somebody else and in trying to financially harm somebody purely because you disagree with their opinion about something.

I think we just dont agree is all. Let me ask you this. If a person is voicing their opinion and a crowd acts on the opinion of that person and burns your house to the ground is it wrong to punish that person?

If you call for the destruction of someone, can they defend themselves? Can they argue in court that shooting you was justified because words are dangerous?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well I did. All you have to do is type the word boycott in your google webpage and its the frist thing to come up. Weird how that works huh? But for those that need proof here you go.

boycott: definition of boycott in Oxford dictionary - American English (US)

If a public official or business person is espousing a stupid, racist opinion (which is evil) then they deserve to be punished by having their livelihood destroyed as a consequence of being stupid enough to voice that opinion.

Well your opinion holds water if you despise the U.S. Constitution, reject the concept of unalienable rights, and wish to do away with all the values of liberty that the First Amendment embodies.

I guess my interpretation holds water then because no where have I said they should not be able to voice their opinion. I simply state they should not be immune from others voicing their opinions and dealing with the consequences created by their actions.

Acually, that is why you are wrong. Words are not actions.

For example, if Obama gets up and gives a speech about Hindus, and someone then goes out and burns down a Hindu temple because Obama "told" him to, I see no reason to hold Obama responsible. On the other hand, if you hand out matches, and then talk about how racist assholes that write slurs on restaurant receipts should be punished, and that person then goes out and burns down the house an innocent person, you should be held responsible for giving them the matches.

Funny thing, my position is a lot closer to what the Supreme Court says than yours.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Keep up Temple. The person that originally voiced the opinion that caused people to burn down your home. In your case, the government voicing their opinion that Native Americans are savages thus unfit to own land. This results in the takeover of native american lands. Is it wrong for a native american to do their best to paint the government in a bad light?

The Indian that lost his home? Maybe not. The great great great great grandchild who never met that Indian and who never lost anything? Yeah, he needs to get over it. IT didn't happen to him and he has no claim on that righteous indignation.

But he did lose something I would have thought would have been obvious to even the clueless. He no longer has the land his forefathers would have passed on to him. Anyway your interpretation of the question is way off base. I'm talking present tense.

Indians didn't believe anyone owned the land. On top of that, they routinely fought over it, with stronger tribes pushing weak ones out of better areas. If the white man hadn't taken the land, there is no reason to believe that they would have kept it.

Even if they did believe in private ownership of land, and managed to hold onto it, there is no reason to believe that one person would have the right to all that land. Even in Europe, which had laws that protected property owners, most of the descendents of any particular property owner don't have land.

 

[Asclepias]

Judge it yourself, I don't give a fuck. Just be prepared to provide evidence of the damage, not the fake damage that comes from the punishment of a boycott.

When was the last time the KKK did any real damage?

Please answer the second part of my question and while you are at it please quote where I opposed a boycott of South Africa. Your lies need to be addressed first.

I am not going to answer your questions because your questions are a result of you not wanting to admit that the KKK is impotent. This lets you pretend that they control the universe so you can pretend that your racism is justified.

Newsflash, even if they did, you would still be wrong.

You are correct. It doesnt matter what status the KKK is in. My point is to punish any public official or business person that advocates that type of thinking by calling them out and hurting them where they can feel it. In the pocket book.

 

[Asclepias]

The Indian that lost his home? Maybe not. The great great great great grandchild who never met that Indian and who never lost anything? Yeah, he needs to get over it. IT didn't happen to him and he has no claim on that righteous indignation.

But he did lose something I would have thought would have been obvious to even the clueless. He no longer has the land his forefathers would have passed on to him. Anyway your interpretation of the question is way off base. I'm talking present tense.

Indians didn't believe anyone owned the land. On top of that, they routinely fought over it, with stronger tribes pushing weak ones out of better areas. If the white man hadn't taken the land, there is no reason to believe that they would have kept it.

Even if they did believe in private ownership of land, and managed to hold onto it, there is no reason to believe that one person would have the right to all that land. Even in Europe, which had laws that protected property owners, most of the descendents of any particular property owner don't have land.

So you are ok that the Whites swindled Native American people out of their land? Good thing most Native Americans dont think like you.

 

[Asclepias]

Well your opinion holds water if you despise the U.S. Constitution, reject the concept of unalienable rights, and wish to do away with all the values of liberty that the First Amendment embodies.

I guess my interpretation holds water then because no where have I said they should not be able to voice their opinion. I simply state they should not be immune from others voicing their opinions and dealing with the consequences created by their actions.

Acually, that is why you are wrong. Words are not actions.

For example, if Obama gets up and gives a speech about Hindus, and someone then goes out and burns down a Hindu temple because Obama "told" him to, I see no reason to hold Obama responsible. On the other hand, if you hand out matches, and then talk about how racist assholes that write slurs on restaurant receipts should be punished, and that person then goes out and burns down the house an innocent person, you should be held responsible for giving them the matches.

Funny thing, my position is a lot closer to what the Supreme Court says than yours.

Actually you cant read. Were did I say words were actions? You seem to enjoy lying. Their action is in speaking opinions that encourage people being racist. For that I get to hurt them financially or career wise if I don't do it illegally. You dont like it. Tough shit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please answer the second part of my question and while you are at it please quote where I opposed a boycott of South Africa. Your lies need to be addressed first.

I am not going to answer your questions because your questions are a result of you not wanting to admit that the KKK is impotent. This lets you pretend that they control the universe so you can pretend that your racism is justified.

Newsflash, even if they did, you would still be wrong.

You are correct. It doesnt matter what status the KKK is in. My point is to punish any public official or business person that advocates that type of thinking by calling them out and hurting them where they can feel it. In the pocket book.

If that was actually your point you would be demanding that harry Reid and Joe Biden be punished. Since you aren't, that is demonstrably not your point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But he did lose something I would have thought would have been obvious to even the clueless. He no longer has the land his forefathers would have passed on to him. Anyway your interpretation of the question is way off base. I'm talking present tense.

Indians didn't believe anyone owned the land. On top of that, they routinely fought over it, with stronger tribes pushing weak ones out of better areas. If the white man hadn't taken the land, there is no reason to believe that they would have kept it.

Even if they did believe in private ownership of land, and managed to hold onto it, there is no reason to believe that one person would have the right to all that land. Even in Europe, which had laws that protected property owners, most of the descendents of any particular property owner don't have land.

So you are ok that the Whites swindled Native American people out of their land? Good thing most Native Americans dont think like you.

Am I PK with it? No. But, as others have repetedly pointed out, the people that did that, and the people that got "swindled," are dead.