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 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 87

Thread: Freedom of speech

  1. #51
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    24,723

    Re: Freedom of speech

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Show that it wasn't convoluted? Are you serious?

    Why don't you... the one that thinks it is convoluted, explain why instead. Thanks.
    Okay; it's simple: how does a discussion about freedom of speech vs Lush Rumbaugh, translate into a comment like this:

    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.
    What lunatic professors? What universities? "little eichmans"?? How does that reply tie into the subject? It's outta left field: it's a convoluted statement.
    “The people do no want virtue; but they are the dupes of pretended patriots” : Elbridge Gerry of Mass; Constitutional Convention 1787

  2. #52
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:10 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    64,020

    Re: Freedom of speech

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    I am serious; show that his answer wasn't convoluted: ga'head
    Debating you is not to be taken seriously... noted.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldFatGuy View Post
    Usually a gag for wise mouthed insulting little girls. Then some good nylon rope so I can tie them up, toss them in the trunk of my car and forget about them.

  3. #53
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:10 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    64,020

    Re: Freedom of speech

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Okay; it's simple: how does a discussion about freedom of speech vs Lush Rumbaugh, translate into a comment like this:What lunatic professors? What universities? "little eichmans"?? How does that reply tie into the subject? It's outta left field: it's a convoluted statement.
    ...and then you answer it.It isn't convoluted if it pertains to the post he answered. The OP has nothing to do with the progression of a thread because threads have a life of their own.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldFatGuy View Post
    Usually a gag for wise mouthed insulting little girls. Then some good nylon rope so I can tie them up, toss them in the trunk of my car and forget about them.

  4. #54
    Educator Flippinfunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA (Raised in SW Oklahoma)
    Last Seen
    08-01-12 @ 06:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    883

    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.)
    The First Amendment protects us from the Government. An employer can fire and employee for something they say, a business can cancel a contract with someone because of something they said(Hank Williams Jr)...and a person can refuse to buy something because of something someone says...none of which harm the first amendment.
    Silly poor people
    Tax cuts are for the rich!

  5. #55
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    24,723

    Re: Freedom of speech

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    ...and then you answer it.It isn't convoluted if it pertains to the post he answered. The OP has nothing to do with the progression of a thread because threads have a life of their own.
    I answered because I thought better of a short reply: you don't seem to grasp the phrase "convoluted statement".

    I went aaaall the way back through the thread, and cpwill's statement is a convoluted repsonse that has nothing to do with the previous post. Thats' why I challenged it. If you can't see that then maybe debating with you would be pointless and unproductive.

    So, you say it's not convoluted; so back that up.
    “The people do no want virtue; but they are the dupes of pretended patriots” : Elbridge Gerry of Mass; Constitutional Convention 1787

  6. #56
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,253

    Re: Freedom of speech

    I can call my boss a **** and he can fire me
    Last edited by Higgins86; 05-01-12 at 12:18 AM.

  7. #57
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:10 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    64,020

    Re: Freedom of speech

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    I answered because I thought better of a short reply: you don't seem to grasp the phrase "convoluted statement".

    I went aaaall the way back through the thread, and cpwill's statement is a convoluted repsonse that has nothing to do with the previous post. Thats' why I challenged it. If you can't see that then maybe debating with you would be pointless and unproductive.

    So, you say it's not convoluted; so back that up.
    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.
    convoluted\KAHN-vuh-loo-tud\DEFINITIONadjective

    1: having many twists and curves
    2: involved, intricate
    Merriam-Webster Online

    If you find that convoluted then your thinking is convoluted...
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldFatGuy View Post
    Usually a gag for wise mouthed insulting little girls. Then some good nylon rope so I can tie them up, toss them in the trunk of my car and forget about them.

  8. #58
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Freedom of speech

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I answered no. You have the right to free speech.You do not have the right of freedom from criticism over something you said,freedom from being fired over something you said about your boss or boycotted over something your said.

    That said it does make you a hypocrite when you claim to support free speech and you try to silence opposing views.Boycots can be used as a means to try to silence views you don't like.Shouting down can be used as a means of silencing views you don't like.Rioting can also be used as a means to silence views you don't like.
    I think people missed the point of your post, so I am going to enlarge upon it as I see your meaning, though I may be adding my own meaning instead of emphasizing yours.

    The right to free speech is protected in the first amendment by preventing the government from infringing on free speech. However, the attitude of support for free speech goes way beyond protecting us from the government ( as a social matter, not a legal one). It is the social response which is being discussed, not the legal.

    The very notion of free speech has its roots in a trust in the workings of the marketplace of ideas. Without trust in the workings of that marketplace, we might as well regulate speech. After all, if we don't believe the common man can handle 'dangerous ideas', and see them for what they are, then we ought to take steps to protect the populace, and to hell with the first amendment. If we do trust that the common man can see a 'dangerous idea' for what it is, then to hell with the notion of boycotts and other types of social coercion, as they are entirely unnecessary. To engage in the impulse to silence others (through any means, legal or social) is to betray a lack of faith in the ability of the participants of a society to eventually arrive at the most worthy idea and to dispense with the loathsome.

    The foundation of representative democracy is partially built from the notion that the marketplace of ideas can be trusted. Entertaining any kind of notion to silence others is the same as admitting that democracy cannot work. Think it through: If you can't trust your fellow citizen to be persuaded to (eventually) vote for the most worthy of ideas, then why in the hell are letting him/her vote in the first place?

    The impulse to silence others whether through social coercion or through legislative remedy is a tyrannical one. Democracy is better off when people are expected to recognize for themselves that when entertainers like Rush Limbaugh speak that they are probably wrong, loathsome and/or deceptive.
    Last edited by Dezaad; 05-01-12 at 01:06 AM.
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

  9. #59
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Freedom of speech

    Now, with all that said...

    I do support disclosure of donations. Part of the marketplace of ideas is discernment gained through know WHO is hiring the biggest bullhorn. So, knowing the source of the funding enhances the marketplace of ideas, rather than detracting from it.
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

  10. #60
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,793

    Re: Freedom of speech

    You can say whatever you want, you are still responsible for that speech. Nobody has any responsibility to make you feel good for what you say.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •