What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CDZ I guess it's time to ask the question:

task0778

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
7,533
Reaction score
5,561
Points
2,065
Location
Texas hill country
Should we have free speech in this country or not? Obviously there are some limitations that have already been defined by law and by the SCOTUS, which is how it should be. But other than that, who gets to deny somebody, ANYBODY, their rights to speech? Does it matter what that person's or group's message is? Does it matter if that message is discriminatory based on race or religion or politics or anything else?

Looks to me like we have a double standard at work here, especially in regard to the MSM. Does the outrage against the ANTIFAs match that against the white supremacists? I don't think so. This whole incident should have been one big fat nothing burger, but the ANTIFAs people wanted to turn it into a political issue and with the help of the MSM they did just that, not caring one bit if their actions lead to violence and possibly hoping that it would. And it did, it takes 2 sides to make a confrontation that was totally unnecessary; certainly a reasonable amount of discretion was missing on both sides and no one should escape some responsibility for what happened. BUT - the chief culprit in this whole sorry affair wasn't the WSers, it was the ANTIFAsers who IMHO showed up to cause trouble for political purposes.

So - back to the question: should we have free speech in this country or not? Should we condemn anybody or any group who denies that right to somebody else? Doesn't look like that happened in this case.
 

yiostheoy

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2016
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
1,933
Points
290
Dumbazz rhetorical question.

Free speech is fine as long as you don't yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Protesting is fine too, especially if you have a permit.

Rioting is not good however. Both sides began to riot. Shame on them both.
 

PredFan

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
39,936
Reaction score
6,170
Points
1,170
Location
In Liberal minds, rent free.
Yes, we should have free speech. The left doesn't want free speech unless they approve. Kind of reminds me of the little fat kid in NK.
 

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
52,591
Reaction score
21,807
Points
2,320
We have free speech under the 1st Amendment. It's not a question of should we, we do.

The "should be" part is that it should be defended at all costs, and by all Americans using all necessary methods to defend it.

A right not exercised and defended is soon lost, be it a natural right or otherwise.
 
OP
task0778

task0778

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
7,533
Reaction score
5,561
Points
2,065
Location
Texas hill country
We have free speech under the 1st Amendment. It's not a question of should we, we do.

The "should be" part is that it should be defended at all costs, and by all Americans using all necessary methods to defend it.

A right not exercised and defended is soon lost, be it a natural right or otherwise.

When was the last time a left-leaning liberal was denied the chance to speak at a college campus somewhere?

As I understand it, the Unite the Right group had a permit to exercise the freedom of speech in Charlottesville but the ANTIFAs people didn't. You think maybe they were there to deny the right to free speech on the part of the UTR group? I kinda think so, and they showed up armed too. Which sorta indicates maybe they showed up to start trouble too. There has been example after example of Leftists denying speech by people with an opposing view; I don't see many examples of Rightists doing that, in fact now that I think about it, NONE. So yeah, we do have the right but it sure looks to me like one side is trying very hard to deny that right to the other side. And then pointing the finger of blame and saying their message is racist or whatever. But you know what? THE MESSAGE DOESN'T MATTER. the Left is trying to say that it does and they have the right and even the responsibility to denounce and deny that message from being heard. So, our right to free speech isn't what it should be right now, and there's no doubt at all who's at fault for that.
 

Fishlore

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
943
Reaction score
172
Points
90
Location
New Hampshire USA
Why is it impossible for the right to express an idea without throwing in some sort of jibe about the left. Is it all they ever think about?
 
OP
task0778

task0778

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
7,533
Reaction score
5,561
Points
2,065
Location
Texas hill country
Why is it impossible for the right to express an idea without throwing in some sort of jibe about the left. Is it all they ever think about?

No, but in this case it's justified. Most of the time both sides deserve some blame for the various problems we face, but when it comes to the exercise of free speech it is the Left who is primarily at fault here. It is they who are doing their best to shut down free speech IMHO as much as they can et away with. And not just the ANTIFAs and fringe people either. Look at the MSM and Academia, it's the Left is who trying to curtail speech and many of them are not adverse to using violence to do it either.
 

Fishlore

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
943
Reaction score
172
Points
90
Location
New Hampshire USA
I'd agree with you in the sense that the right wants unlimited free speech (which we do not have at this time) while the left wishes to extend the limits on hate speech and incitement. There is a reasonable case to be made both for and against the left's wish to extend the limits on free speech -- only a small libertarian group seriously wants to abolish all limits.

In my view the cause for today's debate is technology. When the First Amendment was ratified the technology of communication was radically limited and the audience for oral speech was much smaller and more homogeneous.

The liberal Enlightenment which gave us our free speech was focused on political speech and mostly concerned with free thought and the free expression of ideas. The effects of modern advertising and mass media were unimaginable.
 

outrigger

Rookie
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
38
Reaction score
9
Points
1
Did the city of Charlottesville conspire to deny the rights of the legally permitted Nazis by intentionally allowing the counterprotestors in, and then too close, resulting in the rally being declared unlawful?
 

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
52,591
Reaction score
21,807
Points
2,320
Why is it impossible for the right to express an idea without throwing in some sort of jibe about the left. Is it all they ever think about?

Because the Left is becoming hated in a deep, visceral way not often seen in this country. They are not seen as Americans, and rightfully so. They are seen almost as an occupying force of foreign origin.

While white supremacy and the like are more nonsensical than they are serious matters to be dealt with, the Left is truly dangerous to America.

Just sayin'.
 

Fishlore

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
943
Reaction score
172
Points
90
Location
New Hampshire USA
Why is it impossible for the right to express an idea without throwing in some sort of jibe about the left. Is it all they ever think about?

Because the Left is becoming hated in a deep, visceral way not often seen in this country. They are not seen as Americans, and rightfully so. They are seen almost as an occupying force of foreign origin.

While white supremacy and the like are more nonsensical than they are serious matters to be dealt with, the Left is truly dangerous to America.

Just sayin'.
The left and white supremacy represent different threats to America. Which is the more serious of the two depends, I suppose, on what each movement wants to accomplish and how likely it is to reach its goals. The WS guys seem to want to take America back to an earlier stage ("make America great again") while the Left wants to push America in the direction of the socialism prevalent in other advanced democracies. Which of those two visions of America one prefers depends on how one sees one's life in such a changed utopia.

The other parameter, how likely either of the two visions of America is to actually happening, is a no-brainer. A country can never go back. Time is not reversible and the conditions under which America was formerly great cannot be recreated. This is why political restorations always fail. It might be possible to create an America in which conditions similar to those of former greatness are created, but the results wouldn't be the same. We could take the vote away from women. We could make blacks second-class citizens. We could abolish all the federal social agencies etc. but the result would not be the America of an earlier time, it would be a grim and weak dictatorship.

Moving ahead to the modern social structure prevailing in the rest of the advanced democracies, on the other hand, is already under way and has been for over fifty years. Obamacare wasn't the beginning, only the latest step. Gay marriage and transgender bathrooms are social sideshows. Full on single payer is right around the corner, as is paid maternity leave and a doubled minimum wage. It isn't happening because everybody thinks this evolution is a good idea --obviously many don't -- but because the economic forces shaped by the new technologies are changing our social structure in way that make political developments inevitable.

So, whatever the benefits of turning back the clock on America, it isn't going to happen and whatever evils may lurk in our steady march to a 21st century socialism, the journey is unstoppable. We really don't have a choice in the matter.
 

TheGreatGatsby

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
24,330
Reaction score
3,036
Points
280
Location
California
Did the city of Charlottesville conspire to deny the rights of the legally permitted Nazis by intentionally allowing the counterprotestors in, and then too close, resulting in the rally being declared unlawful?

They did. The mayor is a big Obama guy. The deputy mayor is a flaming social justice warrior / black liberation guy who is intolerant of others points of views and more than willing to brand the opposition.
 

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
52,591
Reaction score
21,807
Points
2,320
Why is it impossible for the right to express an idea without throwing in some sort of jibe about the left. Is it all they ever think about?

Because the Left is becoming hated in a deep, visceral way not often seen in this country. They are not seen as Americans, and rightfully so. They are seen almost as an occupying force of foreign origin.

While white supremacy and the like are more nonsensical than they are serious matters to be dealt with, the Left is truly dangerous to America.

Just sayin'.
The left and white supremacy represent different threats to America. Which is the more serious of the two depends, I suppose, on what each movement wants to accomplish and how likely it is to reach its goals. The WS guys seem to want to take America back to an earlier stage ("make America great again") while the Left wants to push America in the direction of the socialism prevalent in other advanced democracies. Which of those two visions of America one prefers depends on how one sees one's life in such a changed utopia.

The other parameter, how likely either of the two visions of America is to actually happening, is a no-brainer. A country can never go back. Time is not reversible and the conditions under which America was formerly great cannot be recreated. This is why political restorations always fail. It might be possible to create an America in which conditions similar to those of former greatness are created, but the results wouldn't be the same. We could take the vote away from women. We could make blacks second-class citizens. We could abolish all the federal social agencies etc. but the result would not be the America of an earlier time, it would be a grim and weak dictatorship.

Moving ahead to the modern social structure prevailing in the rest of the advanced democracies, on the other hand, is already under way and has been for over fifty years. Obamacare wasn't the beginning, only the latest step. Gay marriage and transgender bathrooms are social sideshows. Full on single payer is right around the corner, as is paid maternity leave and a doubled minimum wage. It isn't happening because everybody thinks this evolution is a good idea --obviously many don't -- but because the economic forces shaped by the new technologies are changing our social structure in way that make political developments inevitable.

So, whatever the benefits of turning back the clock on America, it isn't going to happen and whatever evils may lurk in our steady march to a 21st century socialism, the journey is unstoppable. We really don't have a choice in the matter.

WS has no numbers to speak of, and no media backing to spread its nonsense. It is essentially powerless.

The Left has the advantages of both.

"Make America Great Again" does not mean to take the country backwards to Mayberry and Aunt Bea's apple pies. It means to stop the bleeding and repair the damage done by nearly a half-century of growing Leftist influence over all aspects of American life, thirty years of creeping globalism from both political parties and eight years of Obama's abject and highly damaging racial and economic nonsense.

Consider the conditions of Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, and increasingly New York City and others. That is the entire country in a foreseeable future if there is no recovery.
 

Fishlore

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
943
Reaction score
172
Points
90
Location
New Hampshire USA
Detroit is making a major comeback. New York City is booming. The economy is strong. Our problems are with income distribution, not GNP. The decaying America myth is a bit of fake news from the Trump campaign, nothing more.

The small minority who are "bleeding" are rural whites without the education or training to participate in the new technology. Their crap education isn't the fault of the federal government.

The alt-right solution to this problem is the big business scam: cut federal programs and cut taxes for millionaires. Those uneducated rural white guys think their thrice-married Manhattan billionaire is going to bail them out by shutting down OSHA, EPA, Obamacare etc. etc. Like I said, they aren't too bright.
 

Race Burley

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
93,445
Reaction score
35,046
Points
2,290
Dumbazz rhetorical question.

Free speech is fine as long as you don't yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Protesting is fine too, especially if you have a permit.

Rioting is not good however. Both sides began to riot. Shame on them both.
One certainly can yell fire in a crowded theater. Ones fate after doing so will come out markedly better if said theater is actually on fire.
 

Dalia

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
14,891
Reaction score
12,808
Points
2,445
Location
Lyon, France
Did the city of Charlottesville conspire to deny the rights of the legally permitted Nazis by intentionally allowing the counterprotestors in, and then too close, resulting in the rally being declared unlawful?
Yes, they demonstrated against the removal of the statue with a permit in the pocket.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top