The Value of Free Speech

[hipeter924]

Rich coming from you. You can't even handle the speech on this message board.

I don't know you, and nor do I care what you think; so we have that in common.

I am not proving anybody 'right' or 'wrong', I am simply saying that free speech should be responsibly implemented; rather than society happily accepting anti-Semitism, racism and other forms of discrimination. Free speech should never justify hate speech, speech that encourages violence and intolerance should be guarded against.

Your idea blatantly contradicts the idea of free speech, peter. Yes, there are anti-Semites, racists and other undesirable people out there, but is it right to take away their right to free speech just because they have that opinion? I'm sorry, even as much as I despise such people, taking away their right to free speech sets an ominous precedent. This would not be just limited to the parameters you set, it would be expanded to include religious speech, political speech and et cetera. You don't realize the consequences of what you're suggesting.

Thanks for playing, when your slippery slope comes true (which it never will) let me know. Till then, I am quite happy with Australia and New Zealand's anti-discrimination, and hate speech laws:

 

[TemplarKormac]

Like your own post immediately before that one?

Postululation inoperative, since it was Liberalism that wrote the First Amendment.

Wrong Amendment anyway, once again this thread, as I read the OP and worthy though it is, is about the Fourth Amendment, not the First.

If you look closely Pogo, you have to violate the Fourth Amendment to limit someones First Amendment rights.

No you don't. That's absurd.

Gummint passes a law that makes it illegal for a newspaper to criticize the Prezzydent -- clear violation of First, doesn't involve the Fourth.

No, they're not redundant. And yes they are distinct.

Hmmm, then what about Rosen? His fourth amendment rights were violated, as well as his first. Being a reporter he had his phone records searched, and then was told what he reported on was "top secret" information. That is intimidation of the press, Pogo, so yes the two go hand in hand.

 

[Asclepias]

No, I don't believe I will. You see, I have the freedom to say what I like, even if it offends sissy bedwetters who think the purpose of government is to take care of everyone like they're in kindergarten.

You don't like it?

Tough shit.

So you do support ineffective government and chaos in society? I'm glad you are being truthful. I got it now. RW's would rather the ship sink completely if it means plugging the holes created by their actions.

Chaos in society? Westboro Baptist Church and the Black Panthers both exist in the real world, and I haven't seen society collapse as a result. Did I sleep through the apocalypse again?

Yes chaos. People talking that have no solution but want to talk because they think they have a right to. You normally dont see a society collapse unless you happen to live at the end of it. Do you think you are some kind of god?

 

[Asclepias]

No, I don't believe I will. You see, I have the freedom to say what I like, even if it offends sissy bedwetters who think the purpose of government is to take care of everyone like they're in kindergarten.

You don't like it?

Tough shit.

So you do support ineffective government and chaos in society? I'm glad you are being truthful. I got it now. RW's would rather the ship sink completely if it means plugging the holes created by their actions.

The world will not end if you get offended, Skippy.

Yes, I know you loath freedom. You could always move to one of the progressive paradises where you won't have to put up with it.

Bye.

I know it wont end because of me. I'm just one of billions. I love freedom. I just dislike dumbasses with nothing to say positive. Since I was born here and my ancestors contributed to making this nation I think I'll stay where I'm at.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you do support ineffective government and chaos in society? I'm glad you are being truthful. I got it now. RW's would rather the ship sink completely if it means plugging the holes created by their actions.

Chaos in society? Westboro Baptist Church and the Black Panthers both exist in the real world, and I haven't seen society collapse as a result. Did I sleep through the apocalypse again?

Yes chaos. People talking that have no solution but want to talk because they think they have a right to. You normally don't see a society collapse unless you happen to live at the end of it. Do you think you are some kind of god?

Do you? You seem to think you know everything, Asclepias. You make unsupported claims and then argue them feebly. You insist you are correct without even providing any hard evidence.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Freedom of speech is a unrealistic concept. Everything you say has a price attached to it whether you believe it or not. Some of the things people say have a huge hidden cost. To pretend hate speech is not destructive is a bit on the naive side of the ledger. If you cant prove your point and provide a solution to a problem you probably shouldn't be allowed to talk.

Oh shut it.
Hate speech? The term is so vague, it is impossible to define. The term is used as a bludgeon to silence points of view and to set up the possibility of litigation.
It's a horse shit concept.
Here's an idea Acquire a thicker skin.
As soon as you rabbit earned libs hear something you don't like, your first reaction is "hey shut that guy up"...You are so stupid.
The best way to marginalize an idiot who says something offensive is ignore him. Once you make charges you have encouraged the person because now you have given them a forum.
Here. If a guy on a street corner in downtown decides to start shouting some vile garbage, what do you think will happen if everyone simply ignore the guy? Is it not possible the guy will simply tire of no one paying attention to him and go away?
I do not understand the liberal mindset that commands them to react as though "we HAVE to do something about that. Silence HIM!!!"...
No...Wrong approach. You marginalize the person. You treat him like he's not even there.
It's the same as crying child who is cranky because he has not had a nap or is throwing a temper tantrum. You let the kid tire of crying. Soon, he will stop and fall off to sleep..Problem solved.

 

[Asclepias]

Freedom of speech is a unrealistic concept. Everything you say has a price attached to it whether you believe it or not. Some of the things people say have a huge hidden cost. To pretend hate speech is not destructive is a bit on the naive side of the ledger. If you cant prove your point and provide a solution to a problem you probably shouldn't be allowed to talk.

Oh shut it.
Hate speech? The term is so vague, it is impossible to define. The term is used as a bludgeon to silence points of view and to set up the possibility of litigation.
It's a horse shit concept.
Here's an idea Acquire a thicker skin.
As soon as you rabbit earned libs hear something you don't like, your first reaction is "hey shut that guy up"...You are so stupid.
The best way to marginalize an idiot who says something offensive is ignore him. Once you make charges you have encouraged the person because now you have given them a forum.
Here. If a guy on a street corner in downtown decides to start shouting some vile garbage, what do you think will happen if everyone simply ignore the guy? Is it not possible the guy will simply tire of no one paying attention to him and go away?
I do not understand the liberal mindset that commands them to react as though "we HAVE to do something about that. Silence HIM!!!"...
No...Wrong approach. You marginalize the person. You treat him like he's not even there.
It's the same as crying child who is cranky because he has not had a nap or is throwing a temper tantrum. You let the kid tire of crying. Soon, he will stop and fall off to sleep..Problem solved.

Hate speech is only difficult to define when your brain has a hard time comprehending what hate means. Sorry but practically everyone in the nation agrees with me on that. I dont think people should be shut up until they prove they have no premise and nothing positive to contribute to society. In your example a person on the street saying something like lets kill white people. I would want to know why and what that would accomplish. If he couldn't show me anything positive from that then he needs to be silenced. Hitler came to power with the apathy approach. No one silenced him and he took out a lot of people because of it. Your theory no one is going to listen to this person has been proved wrong many times.

 

[hipeter924]

I was addressing an earlier example use regarding the civil suit against the bakery. As illiterate as someones view is they do have the right to express it verbally. I would support an amendment that said you must provide a solution instead of just criticizing so everyone could see how warped your thinking may or may not be.

You are wrong, period.

No I am right period. I know what I would support or not. Youre the ones that wrong. You dont know what i would support.

They don't care that there is no threat at all to their 'free speech', and they can't come to grips with change whether it is Obama, LGBT marriage, or that in any tolerant society there has to be restrictions on speech. But we are not here to educate them on the constitution: Education for Freedom Lesson 4

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Limits of Freedom of Speech[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Clear and Present Danger[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” [/FONT][/FONT]

They claim to be the authority on the constitution, even though the Supreme Court disagrees with them. I am in the right here.

 

[Steven_R]

That means I can't yell "fire!" into a crowed theater with the intent of starting a riot or tell someone "I'm going to crack your skull open". It does not mean I can't say "I hate fags" or "******* are dumb" or "Kiwis are the lowest form of white man there is (aside from Texans, natch)." Hate speech is stupid, but is not (or shouldn't be) illegal because there is no right to not have one's feelings hurt.

Freedom is ugly and messy at times, but better than the alternative.

 

[Borillar]

He stole that from the left, but don't let facts get in your way.

Really? Who else had "Free Speech Zones"? And if the right is using the same tactics as the left, how are they any different much less superior?

Who else? The 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta. Going to blame that on Bush?

Thank you for this post and also to Daveman for his wikipedia link. It is good to call your own beliefs and convictions under question. No, I don't blame Bush for actions he isn't responsible for. I can only blame him for his own transgressions. Obviously, I have been overlooking the transgressions of my own party. I can no longer claim that Democrats hold any moral high ground over Republicans in this regard. For the record, I believe the whole country is a free speech zone where anyone should be able to voice their doubts and concerns. I cannot support those who do not believe this to be true.

 

[Asclepias]

You are wrong, period.

No I am right period. I know what I would support or not. Youre the ones that wrong. You dont know what i would support.

They don't care that there is no threat at all to their 'free speech', and they can't come to grips with change whether it is Obama, LGBT marriage, or that in any tolerant society there has to be restrictions on speech. But we are not here to educate them on the constitution: Education for Freedom Lesson 4

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Limits of Freedom of Speech[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Clear and Present Danger[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” [/FONT][/FONT]

They claim to be the authority on the constitution, even though the Supreme Court disagrees with them. I am in the right here.

Its that elusive slippery slope theory they always espouse. What they dont get is they can be socialized and brainwashed into the idea anyway if that is what the people in power wanted to happen.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are wrong, period.

No I am right period. I know what I would support or not. Youre the ones that wrong. You dont know what i would support.

They don't care that there is no threat at all to their 'free speech', and they can't come to grips with change whether it is Obama, LGBT marriage, or that in any tolerant society there has to be restrictions on speech. But we are not here to educate them on the constitution: Education for Freedom Lesson 4

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Limits of Freedom of Speech[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Clear and Present Danger[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=&quot]Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” [/FONT][/FONT]

They claim to be the authority on the constitution, even though the Supreme Court disagrees with them. I am in the right here.

So just let me call you two on your flawed interpretations of the First Amendment.

Intentionally provoking confrontations and violence with your mouth is one thing, stating a simple opinion is another. Believing in a religion is another. I cannot believe you would sit there and try to twist the meaning of the First Amendment that way. Since when have any of my opinions started a riot? Or started an all out war? If all my opinion turns out to be is an opinion, then it can't possibly provoke violence. If I don't care for a certain group of people I say so. Does that mean I want to do them harm? Most certainly not!

You are trying to blur the lines between what is "acceptable" and "unacceptable."

 

[thereisnospoon]

Seems to be a matter to be settled by the laws of the state where it occureed. Or do you have a problem with that?

Any American worth calling themselves patriotic and a 100% supporter of the Constitutional principles that set us apart from every other nation on the planet would have a HUGE problem with that. The reason is simple. Such suits should never happen in the first place.
What the alleged injured parties are saying is "you will do business with me on my terms and if you don't I will use the civil courts to make you pay or put you out of business"..
I cannot think of a more un-American perception.
Such a principle is outrageous. So much so that no one with a scintilla of common sense and decency would be in support of them

What part of the Constitution encourages hate speech and actions? It seems like the principles are up for debate. The preamble highlights some basic concepts

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Where does any of that say you get to discriminate against anyone because you dont personally agree with their sex life?

I neither stated nor implied they did.
It's not discrimination. It is simple contract law.
That is two parties must AGREE to terms. If one wishes to not agree there is no contract. The reason is immaterial.
Now, there is a difference.
For example.
I own a catering business. A gay couple walks in and asks me if I will cater their wedding. The couple freely admits they are to be married. Let's say I am a deacon in my church. My church teaches that homosexuality is a sin.
Here's the difference. If I shout at the couple...I don't want your kind in my shop! GET OUT!....That is grossly indecent. And most likely a violation of public accommodations laws. The couple could go to the authorities to seek their help. And charges may be filed. Most states and cities have laws that come attached to a business license which require the business owner comply with all state anti discrimination laws
Now, one the other hand. The same couple walks in and does their browsing. They ask me if I would be interested in catering their wedding. I chat with them and tell them I will get back to them with a quote. After they leave I toss their info in the trash and I mam done with it. MY choice is to not engage in a business transaction based on my religious beliefs. Case closed. That couple cannot compel me to enter into any agreement. As they are free to patronize any other catering company they wish.


There are public accommodations laws that protect people from unlawful discrimination or assault. Obviously this does not apply. Those laws are criminal statutes. Hence the reason this has gone to to civil system.
The shop owner committed no crime. The plaintiff alleges they have been injured. And until states and the federal government legislate against this onslaught of frivolous "I am offended" suits, this garbage will continue.
The civil system is broken. It is broken to the point where a person can sue a ham sandwich. And the defendant has to spend his money and time defending what is surely to be a failure on the part of the plaintiff.
Most suits are filed with the primary focus of gaining a pay day. That is why plaintiff's attorneys go directly to the insurance carrier of the defendant looking for a settlement.
And usually what happens is the defendant is forced to cave because they simply lack the resources to fight the suit. It's horrible. Most people favor this system. Until it is they who are the defendant.
Anyway. The suit is horseshit and should not see the light of day. The business owner exercised his freedom or religion.
Now, as for your attempt at using the preamble to the US Constitution..HUH?
What the hell does that have to do with someone who won't bake a cake?..

 

[PoliticalChic]

.

Our Freedom of Speech rights are not in danger from the government, thankfully, so we're not going to lose that right in the forseeable future.

Unfortunately, intimidation does clearly exist within what remains of our culture in the form of Political Correctness, which intimidates people into not saying what they're thinking because they don't want to lose their job and/or they don't want to be branded with certain labels. The threat of those labels is used to take the conversation off it tracks and control it.

On the bright side, however, PC has been overplayed and is beginning to lose its effectiveness. People are finally telling these people to take their phony indignation, fold it up, and file it. Excellent!

I want to know what people are thinking and who agrees with them. Unlike the PC Police, I'm not afraid to have people who disagree with me have their opinions heard. I'm not going to do anything to intimidate someone from speaking their mind, and the PC crowd can't say that, no matter how much they try to spin it.

There is no ‘PC police.’

Private citizens are at liberty to speak out against the words and actions of other private citizens found to be offensive or inappropriate, regardless how subjective or capricious the grounds for the objection might perceived to be. That those who engage in the offensive or inappropriate speech allow themselves to be intimidated or shut down by those objecting to their speech is the fault of those engaged in the offensive speech, not the citizens objecting.

This is the nature of a free and democratic society, what Justice Kennedy refers to as the constitution with a lower case ‘c,’ the discourse, debate, disagreement, and dissent of a free people to determine themselves what speech is or is not appropriate, absent interference by legislative measures or rulings by the courts.

It is to be celebrated and encouraged, not ridiculed as being ‘PC.’

Really, C_Chamber_Pot???


In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut? | The Daley Gator



Hey....did you hear: Obama put her on the Supreme Court.

Know what that is?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sigh....so boring. That headline interested me as it was the first time I had seen it. Naturally, the title is bullshit. Tester and Murphy did no such thing.

Th video is shit. Not worthy of a second look.

Why don't you tell me the purpose of the two WH websites. Be honest.

Thanks for boring me to ******* death.

That video really hits a nerve with you libs..Good.
Oh, it's as real as it gets.
Tough shit.
This is representative of your sides point of view..And you'll just have to live with it.

How's the baseball coaching coming along?

How's your crochet class coming?

 

[TemplarKormac]

That video really hits a nerve with you libs..Good.
Oh, it's as real as it gets.
Tough shit.
This is representative of your sides point of view..And you'll just have to live with it.

How's the baseball coaching coming along?

How's your crochet class coming?

He's sewing a red line.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When, on the thread somewhere dealing with the Libretardian pope, Paul II, the Randists showed their true nasty nature by joyously praising the fact that the websites have moderators. "Oh, that's different" is the gateway to Stalinism. Like a mirror, they change things from Left to Right but it's still just as ugly. We've been warned in advance that if they ever crippled the government, their business heroes would hire people to spy on employees' private lives. But, oh, that's different, it's the Boss's own money spent on goons, not taxpayers' money spent on Homeland Security Men in Black.

Lol, another far leftist who has his head buried in his glutes. I frankly want the government to vanish. I want it to be rebuilt on Constitutional foundations, not on bureaucratic ones.

Who cares what you want? You are outnumbered. You are just a self-obsessed Greedhead walking tall by walking all over people.

Really? Outnumbered? Ah I see, the more far left liberals there are in a pack, the more stupid there is. In that case, I am outnumbered. By stupid people. I would have completely ignored this post, had I not been looking for some way to sate my boredom. If you care to argue me on something substantive, I'm all ears.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Never. Not once. Never considered it.

And a question for you: Are you equating a "neg rep" on a website with intimidating people not to say words you don't like?

Really?

.

If I can intimidate someone over the internet they shouldn't be on the internet.

Hey, that's almost exactly right. Change "they" to "I" and you're there.

Sure, and you will naturally feel intimidated when you are losing a debate. Stop whining.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sigh....so boring. That headline interested me as it was the first time I had seen it. Naturally, the title is bullshit. Tester and Murphy did no such thing.

Th video is shit. Not worthy of a second look.

Why don't you tell me the purpose of the two WH websites. Be honest.

Thanks for boring me to ******* death.

That video really hits a nerve with you libs..Good.
Oh, it's as real as it gets.
Tough shit.
This is representative of your sides point of view..And you'll just have to live with it.

More like tickles the funny bone…

You still have no substantive rebuttal for the content ot the video.
You said so yourself. "Not worthy of a second look"...
That comment leaves you pretty much out of gas.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are about as gullible as a newborn child if you dont think he could find some right wingers to do the same thing if he switched up his proposition to limit the free speech of liberals. Are you really that stupid or are you just playing possum?

Um, given that I don't take you seriously, Asclepias, yes I would be playing possum. Only newborn children like you would be gullible enough to be led around by the hand with liberal propaganda. You just can't stick to the original argument, can you?

Youre the one that responded to me saying he could find some rw's to say the same thing. Why didnt you stick to the point instead of addressing my observation?

I have been. What have you been doing during this entire thread? Playing cheerleader. Provocateur. Had you a real argument, perhaps we would be on topic, wouldn't we? Don't lecture me in my own thread, churl.