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!

The First Amendment is useless.

OP
R

Relative Ethics

Active Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2021
Messages
217
Reaction score
142
Points
43
So, government should decide who can and can't be fired, and why? What else would you like to put the state in charge of?

I would like the government to continue the War on Drugs. The main positive value is that considerably more Progressives then Conservatives use drugs and thus suffer the penalty.
 
OP
R

Relative Ethics

Active Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2021
Messages
217
Reaction score
142
Points
43

A few states, including California and New York, have laws prohibiting private employers from firing employees for legal, off-duty speech or conduct that doesn’t conflict with the employer’s business-related interests.

Conservatives must work to strengthen these protections.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
39,065
Reaction score
5,966
Points
1,130

A few states, including California and New York, have laws prohibiting private employers from firing employees for legal, off-duty speech or conduct that doesn’t conflict with the employer’s business-related interests.

You're making progressives very happy. They love this kind of shit.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
59,719
Reaction score
17,652
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Most Conservatives and Classical Liberals are strong proponents of Free Speech. Most Progressives are proponents of Totalitarian Censorship of any idea they find offensive. They also support Draconian Punishment of anyone who expresses or hints at disagreeing with their views. Strangely, almost everyone supports the First Amendment. I do not.


The First Amendment was passed in 1789. It provided Freedom of Worship, Speech, Press, and Association for all free people. Sadly, American Slaves had neither Rights nor Freedom. Russian and East European serfs also had few Rights and little Freedom. Fortunately, for more then a Century, every free person was free to express unpopular views.


During XVIIIth and XIXth Centuries, the economy and tools of production were simple. Most people were self-employed in craft and agriculture. Tools of communication were simple as well. Most political groups could own a small printing press. Even if some group would have attempted to "cancel" their political opponents by coercing every business to boycott them, they would not have been successful.


By the beginning of the XXth Century, means of Production and Communication became much more sophisticated and interconnected. Many workers came to depend on their employees for their very livelihood. During the Red Scare of 1917 -- 1920, and more so during McCarthyism 1947 -- 1957, hundreds or perhaps thousands of people were blacklisted for expressing Communist or Socialist views. This was the first instance of Authoritarian rule within the framework of the First Amendment.


For some time after 1957, America remained a Free Society. Very few people were fired for their political opinions, and they generally could find another job. They were fired for really offensive speech. For instance on August 6, 1965, disc jockey Bob Dayton was fired for joking on air about the 20th anniversary of bombing of Hiroshima.


During late 1980s and 1990s, Political Correctness came into force. Thousands of people were fired by universities and Liberal companies for disagreeing with Progressives. America ceased to be a Free Society, and became Authoritarian.


Authoritarianism of 1990s and 2000s was much milder then Totalitarianism of 2020s. During 2000s, I had some conversations with people who have publicly expressed Politically Incorrect views. They told me that they would never apply for a job in a Liberal company since they would not be hired. Nevertheless, they did find jobs with companies that valued Freedom.

Totalitarian Cancel Culture of 2020s is much worse then Political Correctness of the past decades. Tens or hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs and careers for slightest offense against Progressives. Many of those who lose jobs are blacklisted. Even though many companies would like to hire these people, these companies are coerced by other businesses into not hiring them. Any company which falls out of line is boycotted by all other companies. Social Media censors speech which offends Progressives. When Parler was deplatformed by Amazon and Apple, almost every American company was afraid to work with Parler. The First Amendment did not prevent American Society from becoming Totalitarian. To a degree, the First Amendment Freedom of Association enables Totalitarianism.


Is there a possibility that the tide of Totalitarianism will turn back? Honestly, it is very unlikely. I am not optimistic about Conservatives organising fast enough to resist Totalitarianism. Nevertheless, anyone who values Freedom should take every practical legal step to oppose Totalitarianism. Maybe there is a chance.

1) We should support any legislation opposing Totalitarianism. If there is a proposed state law making Political Affiliation a protected class, we must support it! California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota have some protection for employees from being fired for some off-duty speech. We should also support any law which would penalize Social Media companies for violating political neutrality. Even if such law is repealed by a high court, every hassle for Totalitarian Social Media is a plus.

2) Conservatives should help individuals and companies targeted by Progressive mobs.

3) In small Conservative counties, some businesses may help by firing Progressive workers. Boycotting businesses owned by Progressives or employing them may also be effective. This would be an effective pushback against Progressives. This would also encourage them to support part 1) -- greater employee protections.
The thread premise is a lie and fails as a strawman fallacy.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
59,719
Reaction score
17,652
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Given that almost every Conservative has written or said something for which they are likely to lose their career, Conservatives should support greater protections for employees from arbitrary firing. Simple self-interest.
Having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment or ‘progressives.’

As already correctly noted: the First Amendment and doctrine of free speech concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or entities.

That private citizens condemn the racist remarks of a conservative talk show host does not ‘violate’ the First Amendment or free speech.

That private social media refuse to accommodate rightwing hate speech does not ‘violate’ the First Amendment or free speech.

That a private company refuses to do business in a state whose Republican lawmakers enact measures hostile to the right to vote does not ‘violate’ the First Amendment or free speech.

There is no such thing as ‘cancel culture’ – it’s a myth contrived by conservatives; it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that private citizens, in the context of private society, determine through debate and discourse what types of speech are appropriate and what types of speech are not, free from interference from the government or the courts.

Private citizens engaging in this debate and discourse is the foundation of a free and democratic society.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,378
Reaction score
14,544
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
The first amendment references the right to free speech without restrictions from the government. It says nothing about private individuals.
So get these nig***s out of my goddamn store. Whites only.

Right?
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
38,194
Reaction score
14,336
Points
1,560
.....Gina Carano is a perfect example--and she was telling the truth --NOT hate/etc

Not related to the first amendment.
hahahhaha
1. related to the OP--perfectly related
2. you can't refute it
3. yes, it is RELATED to the 1st Amendment = free speech--you fkd up!!
4. you support people getting punished for telling the truth/free speech = YOU are like the nazis
 
Last edited:

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
87,429
Reaction score
25,796
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
The first amendment references the right to free speech without restrictions from the government. It says nothing about private individuals.

It blows my mind that the so-called "conservatives" who say they are for property rights and free speech believe the government should force private individuals to carry the speech of others on the private property of others. There's nothing more totalitarian than that.

The irony - and the stupidity - of this argument is off the charts.

But if your goal above all else is to "own the libs" in the culture war, consistency of thought doesn't matter.

To be fair, it was liberals who started the stupidity. They turned religious freedom into the "freedom" to force other people to accommodate your religion. Now Trumpsters have joined their campaign to do the same thing to freedom of speech. They want to turn freedom of speech into the "freedom" to force others to accommodate their speech. The cruel irony is that appending this additional perk actually undermines the original freedom.

agreed. The list of stupid things liberals do is endless
 

XponentialChaos

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
10,323
Reaction score
3,634
Points
210
.....Gina Carano is a perfect example--and she was telling the truth --NOT hate/etc

Not related to the first amendment.
hahahhaha
1. related to the OP--perfectly related
2. you can't refute it
3. yes, it is RELATED to the 1st Amendment = free speech--you fkd up!!
4. you support people getting punished for telling the truth/free speech = YOU are like the nazis

The first amendment is about the GOVERNMENT censoring you, moron.

It doesn’t say that there will be no consequences for your speech.

You seriously didn’t know that?

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAJAJAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
 

sartre play

Gold Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
5,545
Reaction score
1,095
Points
140
Swearing at people & calling them names for having a different point of view is not healthy. Free speech, should be sharing your point of view, not demonizing others with different views. We have descended to the gutter in dealing with each other.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
39,065
Reaction score
5,966
Points
1,130
.....Gina Carano is a perfect example--and she was telling the truth --NOT hate/etc

Not related to the first amendment.
hahahhaha
1. related to the OP--perfectly related
2. you can't refute it
3. yes, it is RELATED to the 1st Amendment = free speech--you fkd up!!
4. you support people getting punished for telling the truth/free speech = YOU are like the nazis

The first amendment is about the GOVERNMENT censoring you, moron.

It doesn’t say that there will be no consequences for your speech.

You seriously didn’t know that?

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAJAJAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA


And it's worse than a simple misunderstanding. The inside out interpretation of the 1st, actually undermines real freedom of speech. Especially when they're calling for "regulation" to achieve their ends.
 
Last edited:

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,669
Reaction score
2,463
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
So, government should decide who can and can't be fired, and why? What else would you like to put the state in charge of?

I would like the government to continue the War on Drugs. The main positive value is that considerably more Progressives then Conservatives use drugs and thus suffer the penalty.

There is no legal basis at all for the War on Drugs, and it does is make government criminal.
 

XponentialChaos

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
10,323
Reaction score
3,634
Points
210
.....Gina Carano is a perfect example--and she was telling the truth --NOT hate/etc

Not related to the first amendment.
hahahhaha
1. related to the OP--perfectly related
2. you can't refute it
3. yes, it is RELATED to the 1st Amendment = free speech--you fkd up!!
4. you support people getting punished for telling the truth/free speech = YOU are like the nazis

The first amendment is about the GOVERNMENT censoring you, moron.

It doesn’t say that there will be no consequences for your speech.

You seriously didn’t know that?

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAJAJAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

This is worse that simply a misunderstanding. The inside out interpretation of the 1st, actually undermines real freedom of speech. Especially when they're calling for "regulation" to achieve their ends.

I agree. But good luck explaining that to them.

I can’t even get them to understand what the thing says.

“How come I can call my boss the n-word and still get fired? I thought we had the freedom of speech!?”
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
138,659
Reaction score
29,632
Points
2,180
1) We should support any legislation opposing Totalitarianism. If there is a proposed state law making Political Affiliation a protected class, we must support it! California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota have some protection for employees from being fired for some off-duty speech. We should also support any law which would penalize Social Media companies for violating political neutrality. Even if such law is repealed by a high court, every hassle for Totalitarian Social Media is a plus.

The first amendment references the right to free speech without restrictions from the government. It says nothing about private individuals.

It blows my mind that the so-called "conservatives" who say they are for property rights and free speech believe the government should force private individuals to carry the speech of others on the private property of others. There's nothing more totalitarian than that.

The irony - and the stupidity - of this argument is off the charts.

But if your goal above all else is to "own the libs" in the culture war, consistency of thought doesn't matter.
Twitter and Facebook are government protected monopolies. With government privileges comes government regulation.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top