• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which of These Responses Are "Anti-Free Speech"?

Which responses to James is "anti-free speech"? (see question below)

  • Calling James a bigot

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Telling James he shouldn't have said that

    Votes: 4 13.8%

  • Organizing a boycott of James's business

    Votes: 5 17.2%

  • Petitioning to have James fired

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • Revoking invitation to have James speak at a private event

    Votes: 4 13.8%

  • Stalking James and harassing his family

    Votes: 20 69.0%

  • Threatening to kill James if he says it again

    Votes: 18 62.1%

  • Lobbying the government to prevent James from speaking

    Votes: 23 79.3%

  • Voting for a law to prevent James from speaking

    Votes: 25 86.2%

  • None of the above

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Total voters
    29
Camer☑n;1065552225 said:
QUESTION: Say that James exercises his free speech and says something offensive. Which of these responses, if any, are "anti-free speech"?
Click to expand...

I didn't vote for "Threatening to kill James if he says it again" because it depends on whether that threat is meant or if its just saying something because you're pissed off. If its meant and would actually happen then it is anti-free speech. If its just being said cause you're pissed and you wouldn't actually carry it out then its a non-issue and is a part of free speech.

I did vote on:

Stalking James and harassing his family
Lobbying the government to prevent James from speaking
Voting for a law to prevent James from speaking

Those are violations of several laws and a case could easily be made for each that it is anti-free speech.

The rest are debateable and depends on a persons POV so I didn't vote for them. Remember, just because free speech is being used, doesn't mean that that speech can't be considered anti-free speech. Theoretically the only real consequence of free speech should be the derision of others through free speech. Not the loss of real material things or ones livelihood. Reality however doesn't necessarily reflect the way things should be.
 
Silencing him through imprisonment or mutilation.

Threats of violence do not necessarily qualify.
 
Phys251 said:
Calling any of #1-5 "anti-free speech" would be an admission of not understanding of what free speech is or how it works.

Literally the only thing free speech restricts is the government's taking action against a citizen voicing their opinion out loud. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

There are different types of free speech. Free speech doesn't have to just relate to the government not being able to interfere. Legally and Constitutionally is what your post is about. But I contend that there is more to being able to have free speech than just restricting the government from interfering with it. For example is it really free speech if a crowd of people yell and scream in order to drown out one single voice so that voice is not heard? Is it free speech if that voice is not able to be heard by even the person standing right next to that voice? It is my opinion that true free speech is where every opinion can be heard by those around them. No matter how disagreeable that speech may be. And when you get a mob of people together in order to drown someone out so no one can hear then that is effectively silencing them. The very essence of what being anti-free speech is about.
 
earthworm said:
Freedom of speech applies primarily to the relationship between a citizen and his government. There are other laws covering one man to another , such as the truth , rudeness, civility, and so forth. Then there is the responsibility factor (yelling "fire" in the crowded theater) . ..The tough thing we must learn is not calling "James" a bigot, even if its 100% true .
Click to expand...

Why is calling James a bigot, if he's a bigot, a bad thing?
 
Camer☑n;1065552225 said:
QUESTION: Say that James exercises his free speech and says something offensive. Which of these responses, if any, are "anti-free speech"?
Click to expand...

Free speech isn't applicable in all places. So you need to be more specific about WHERE James exercised his so-called free speech.
 
jamesrage?

Telling him that he shouldn't have said that covers all of the choices below that choice. It trys to invoke punishment for spoken word. We do not have that punishment in our laws. Thank GOD!
 
ocean515 said:
Of course they are. They are designed to harm, silence, and force surrender. Pathetic. Confirms much.
Click to expand...

Bull****. A boycott is simply an expression of one's own speech and right to free association. You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Kobie said:
Bull****. A boycott is simply an expression of one's own speech and right to free association. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

What a load of bull Kobie. Get a grip. A boycott is nothing of the sort.
 
Kobie said:
Bull****. A boycott is simply an expression of one's own speech and right to free association. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Well...that depends on if the boycotters are liberals or not.
 
None of the above.

All of the other stuff happens everyday anyhow, if they truly were anti-rights, the right to free expression would go out the door.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom