View Poll Results: Free speech question

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    2 7.14%
  • no

    25 89.29%
  • rootabega (for goshin)

    1 3.57%
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 87

Thread: Freedom of speech

  1. #11
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Freedom of speech

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    One question people should ask themselves. "If I see people boycotting Rush's advertisers as illegitimate, how would I see about someone boycotting the advertisers of a KKK radio show or a radio show that encourages people towards a fundamentalist view of Islam?"

    Everyone has, in their minds, a category of speech that they see as harmful and detrimental to one's fellow man even if that speech is perfectly legal, they would still turn their back on it and choose not to associate with others who support it.
    This is the crux of the problem. Many people are either unable or unwilling to understand why others would see their beliefs and actions as harmful. Those same people are often either unable or unwilling to understand why others would see beliefs and actions that they view harmful as positive.

    It's hypocrisy, but usually hypocrisy that the hypocrites are too self-aggrandizing to recognize.

  2. #12
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Freedom of speech

    "Boycotting" is a part of the 1st amendment. As much a part of it as Rush Limbaugh's statements, The Dixie Chick's statements, Ted Nugent's statements, and even Debate politics website here! People forget that the protections afforded in the 1st amendment are from the government. The people are plenty free to speak against you for your stupid statements.
    From the ashes.

  3. #13
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Freedom of speech

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    "Boycotting" is a part of the 1st amendment. As much a part of it as Rush Limbaugh's statements, The Dixie Chick's statements, Ted Nugent's statements, and even Debate politics website here! People forget that the protections afforded in the 1st amendment are from the government. The people are plenty free to speak against you for your stupid statements.
    QFT. Essentially what i just said.

    12345
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  4. #14
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Freedom of speech

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    "Boycotting" is a part of the 1st amendment. As much a part of it as Rush Limbaugh's statements, The Dixie Chick's statements, Ted Nugent's statements, and even Debate politics website here! People forget that the protections afforded in the 1st amendment are from the government. The people are plenty free to speak against you for your stupid statements.
    I'm sorry to say, you're wrong on one point. The 1st Amendment is not afforded "from the government". The Amendments and the Constitution were meant and are "limitations of government". The government didn't give me or any other citizen of this country living or dead, anything that they didn't already have... it DID however limit government from taking action against it's citizens and does not allow the government to take actions of speech which it doesn't agree with... hence, the freedom of speech.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  5. #15
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Freedom of speech

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Isn't quote "shouting down" someone else's point of view simply free speech of another form? May the best man win
    It depends on how you do it. The image of two people shouting and everyone choosing who they want to listen to is fine. But the reality is often that one voice has much greater ability to get its message out. For example, all of the political ads and marketing that virtually guarantee that a third party candidate won't have a good shot at an election. The loudest voices in politics are often just the wealthiest. But that concern is really just for big, national issues. That same kind of decoupling of money from speech doesn't really come in a local issue. In local issues, the stakes are low enough that the big money stays home. But when we're crafting a federal energy policy, then the money comes out and buys the airtime, funds elections, and controls the outcome to their tastes.

    But you're right, SB, no one gets to voice their opinions in a vacuum. Someone else disagreeing with you does not limit your speech. Speech isn't a race to see who talks first. The reply is just as free as the original speaker.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  6. #16
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Freedom of speech

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    It depends on how you do it. The image of two people shouting and everyone choosing who they want to listen to is fine. But the reality is often that one voice has much greater ability to get its message out. For example, all of the political ads and marketing that virtually guarantee that a third party candidate won't have a good shot at an election. The loudest voices in politics are often just the wealthiest. But that concern is really just for big, national issues. That same kind of decoupling of money from speech doesn't really come in a local issue. In local issues, the stakes are low enough that the big money stays home. But when we're crafting a federal energy policy, then the money comes out and buys the airtime, funds elections, and controls the outcome to their tastes.

    But you're right, SB, no one gets to voice their opinions in a vacuum. Someone else disagreeing with you does not limit your speech. Speech isn't a race to see who talks first. The reply is just as free as the original speaker.
    All decent points.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Freedom of speech

    Free speech is a two-way road.

    You have the right to speak your mind, and other people have the right to disassociate from you. That's one good part of America imo.

    However, political correctness is one thing that hampers free speech.

  8. #18
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Freedom of speech

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    Free speech is a two-way road.

    You have the right to speak your mind, and other people have the right to disassociate from you. That's one good part of America imo.

    However, political correctness is one thing that hampers free speech.
    Political correctness is an agreed on use of language and is the byproduct of people having to live with each other and preferring not to be at each other's throats all the time.

  9. #19
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Freedom of speech

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    Starting with the Rush Limbaugh thing and also continuing with some of the comments I see about the idea of disclosure of political donations. There seems to be an idea that speech is not free if people react negatively to what someone says.

    For example, there was a claim made by some that Rush Limbaugh was losing his free speech rights because people boycotted his advertisers and there seems to be similar fears about disclosure of PAC or campaign contributions.

    So my question is this, is the first amendment harmed if the citizenry refuses to associate with or purchase from someone because they dislike their speech? Similarly, is this impugned if people threaten to do the same if someone decides to make such a statement in the future? (example, don't talk bad about puppies or I will never buy from your store again and I will write a letter to your job's complaint department.)
    Freedom of speech means the government won't do anything (though with the FCC these days...well there's not a lot of broadcast free speech left). Individuals are under no obligation to support your product if you say something they don't like. In fact, the proper servo in the system is not to use government force and forms of thought police, but rather let consumers actively servo the system.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #20
    American
    cpgrad08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lakewood,WA
    Last Seen
    10-18-17 @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,388
    Blog Entries
    10
    You are free to speak your mind without the government interfearing. Your not,free from on how,other people will react to your,words.

    Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •