I wonder if they know that the first amendment applies only to congress with a few exceptions?I know that and you know that, tell that to some of the wacky libertarians who thinks rights are. :roll:
Show the post: I remember saying that there was a convoluted statement made, but I don't where it is actually.
Nope. It is just a few pages back if that. You can look it up or I will just chalk it up to you being wrong.
absolutely not. that is why, for example, universities should have the right to disassociate themselves from lunatic professors who go off spouting on little eichmans' and the like.
Right: post # 43; CPWILL
His response has nothing to do with above poster’s comment. Universities should disassociate? Lunatic professors? Little eichman’s?? Nowhere in the thread up to that point is any such mention of anything the poster alludes to made! It’s a cryptic and convoluted statement that says nothing actually, which is why I followed up by saying it was convoluted, and CPWILL obviously had no answer; and neither do you.
Originally Posted by megaprogman
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.)
Originally Posted by cpwill
absolutely not. that is why, for example, universities should have the right to disassociate themselves from lunatic professors who go off spouting on little eichmans' and the like.
Dude, I already addressed this and you insulted my reading comprehension. It is obvious you don't get it.
Isn't quote "shouting down" someone else's point of view simply free speech of another form? May the best man win :shrug:
I agree with this, but it has to be allowable on all sides. I sure remember some people taking issue with constituents "shouting down" local politicians at town hall meetings during the health care debate.
On the OP, boycotts are fine, but again, it cuts all ways. Other people's boycott list my just be my list of preferred businesses (I'm thinking of the boycott against Arizona businesses during the immigration law debate). On the Rush thing, the businesses that pulled their advertising actually suffered some backlash and, I'm guessing we'd all agree, that that's perfectly fine too.
Dude: the guy made a convoluted statement. His statement says nothing about free speech. He leaves no clue to what he's trying to say.
So, you think what you want to think, and I'll think what I want to think.
Howzat?