Libs vs. Cons: Attempts to silence free speech

[manifold]

So which side of the aisle do you think is more guilty of trying to silence opposing views, whether via legislation, boycotts, marginalization or other methods?

I'm sure everyone has an opinion about this, but what I really want is to construct a list of examples that we can then compare, side to side, to determine which side is really the greater enemy of free speech.

Go.

 

[manifold]

I'll offer up one for each side:

1. Libs: Failed attempt to browbeat CBS into pulling the Tebow ad.

2. Cons: Boycott of the Dixie Chicks.

Of course neither of these involve the 1st Amendment as there was no government infringement taking place. But they are both examples of politically motivated attempts to silence opposing views.

What else can you think of?

 

[L.K.Eder]

shut the fuck up

 

[manifold]

shut the fuck up

which side are you again?

I need to know where to assign credit here.

 

[California Girl]

Liberals constantly try to silence Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity. The Color of Change boycotted Beck over the Van Jones thing. That worked out real well....... for Beck.

 

[manifold]

Another one for the Libs: Attempts to marginalize the Tea Party movement.

 

[L.K.Eder]

shut the fuck up

which side are you again?

I need to know where to assign credit here.

i am on the side of goodness and non-badness.

and you are still talking

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

So which side of the aisle do you think is more guilty of trying to silence opposing views, whether via legislation, boycotts, marginalization or other methods?

I'm sure everyone has an opinion about this, but what I really want is to construct a list of examples that we can then compare, side to side, to determine which side is really the greater enemy of free speech.

Go.

Both are equally guilty at times. However only one side claims to be the "tolerant" side .

 

[manifold]

Both are equally guilty at times. However only one side claims to be the "tolerant" side .

I would tend to agree, however the libs are running away with actual examples so far.

 

[Ragnar]

Here is one that hit's both sides...

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

and...

Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank goodness both got slapped down, as well they should have. (though it should be said, both sides share some guilt for each example above)

I'm not sure what you mean in the OP when you say "silence free speech" and then later when you meantion that the first amendment does not apply. To me, if the first amendment does not apply then "free speech" is not being silenced IMO.

 

[California Girl]

Here is one that hit's both sides...

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

and...

Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank goodness both got slapped down, as well they should have. (though it should be said, both sides share some guilt for each example above)

I'm not sure what you mean in the OP when you say "silence free speech" and then later when you meantion that the first amendment does not apply. To me, if the first amendment does not apply then "free speech" is not being silenced IMO.

If you think the Fairness Doctine is dead, you have not looked at Obama's appointee to the FCC. I suggest you research Mark Lloyd. What he wants to do will make the Fairness Doctrine look positively free.

 

[manifold]

I'm not sure what you mean in the OP when you say "silence free speech" and then later when you meantion that the first amendment does not apply. To me, if the first amendment does not apply then "free speech" is not being silenced IMO.

The first amendment only applies if the government is the one doing the silencing.

Take the Tebow example. Pro-choice groups tried to stong-arm CBS into pulling the ad. No government involvement, therefore not a 1st amendment issue, but certainly a politically motivated attempt to silence an opposing viewpoint (or at least prevent it from being heard by 100 million people simultaneously).

 

[Dr Gregg]

So which side of the aisle do you think is more guilty of trying to silence opposing views, whether via legislation, boycotts, marginalization or other methods?

I'm sure everyone has an opinion about this, but what I really want is to construct a list of examples that we can then compare, side to side, to determine which side is really the greater enemy of free speech.

Go.

Conservatives (obviously in general since there are varying levels of conservatives) but mainly the social conservatives. Examples

1. They will protest movies they don't like, TV shows that have violence and nudity, pressure FCC to fine people that break these issues . They will try to get schools to ban books they don't like.

2. Abortion- they want to force their morals on others and deny them the freedom to choose what they want to do with their body.

3. Gay marriage- they want to prevent the freedom of two gay people to get the same legal rights of marriage as heterosexual people.



3.

 

[Ragnar]

Here is one that hit's both sides...

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

and...

Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank goodness both got slapped down, as well they should have. (though it should be said, both sides share some guilt for each example above)

I'm not sure what you mean in the OP when you say "silence free speech" and then later when you meantion that the first amendment does not apply. To me, if the first amendment does not apply then "free speech" is not being silenced IMO.

If you think the Fairness Doctine is dead, you have not looked at Obama's appointee to the FCC. I suggest you research Mark Lloyd. What he wants to do will make the Fairness Doctrine look positively free.

I agree, however it is a matter of fact that at one time the fairness doctrine was in force and currently it is not and that is a good thing. But still, we need to work to keep it that way.

 

[Dr Gregg]

I'll offer up one for each side:

1. Libs: Failed attempt to browbeat CBS into pulling the Tebow ad.

2. Cons: Boycott of the Dixie Chicks.

Of course neither of these involve the 1st Amendment as there was no government infringement taking place. But they are both examples of politically motivated attempts to silence opposing views.

What else can you think of?

1 is pretty bad example. As all the people did was use their right to free speech to protest the playing of the add. But then again, I guess my #1 can fall into a similar situation. Now, if they forced CBS to remove it through sicking the fcc on them, that would probably fit.

Even 2 I think is pretty bad, as its not preventing anybody's rights or freedoms, all they are doing is displaying their freedom to not buy or see the Dixie Chicks> No denying freedoms there, as stupid as I thought it was.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Another one for the Libs: Attempts to marginalize the Tea Party movement.

These are nto restricting freedoms, but a display of freedom of speech. Speaking out against any group is not denying freedoms. Passing laws to discriminate is

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Another one for the Libs: Attempts to marginalize the Tea Party movement.

The TPers marginalized the TPers.

And now that they're talking about forming their own party, expect the GOP to start targeting them.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So which side of the aisle do you think is more guilty of trying to silence opposing views, whether via legislation, boycotts, marginalization or other methods?

I'm sure everyone has an opinion about this, but what I really want is to construct a list of examples that we can then compare, side to side, to determine which side is really the greater enemy of free speech.

Go.

Both are equally guilty at times. However only one side claims to be the "tolerant" side .

'The one that wants to talk about Jesus in school?

 

[Dr Gregg]

Well, I guess my 2 and 3 don't fit since we are only talking about free speech.

So frankly the only thing that really applies is when groups force the FCC to act

 

[Ragnar]

I'm not sure what you mean in the OP when you say "silence free speech" and then later when you meantion that the first amendment does not apply. To me, if the first amendment does not apply then "free speech" is not being silenced IMO.

The first amendment only applies if the government is the one doing the silencing.

Take the Tebow example. Pro-choice groups tried to stong-arm CBS into pulling the ad. No government involvement, therefore not a 1st amendment issue, but certainly a politically motivated attempt to silence an opposing viewpoint (or at least prevent it from being heard by 100 million people simultaneously).

Oh I get the distinction very well indeed.

However I don't see boycott's or pressure on private companies by private individuals as silencing free speech, I just see it as more speech. I'm as close to a free speech absolutist as one can get. But TV stations or radio stations ought to have the right to air whatever they want and the public can do whatever they want (free speechwise) to influence the message in any way they see fit.