• 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!

You can say that.

Faux News.

Excellent rebuttal.

41397-Picard-clapping-applause-gif-vX3R.gif
 
And what part of "the results of speech" don't you understand.

How you are applying it. This is a thread about free speech and attempts to curb it. How does your statement apply to this threads topic?
 
How you are applying it. This is a thread about free speech and attempts to curb it. How does your statement apply to this threads topic?

(chuckle)

How do results apply to anything Kal?

It's not what you say; it's what you do...

What's been curbing speech forever - is litigation.
 
(chuckle)

How do results apply to anything Kal?

It's not what you say; it's what you do...

What's been curbing speech forever - is litigation.

Litigation isn't the only thing curbing it. SJW's are also curbing it by costing people their jobs and livelihoods. But yes, litigation is definitely a major player in curbing free speech. Particularly by big corporations and the government. In New York they passed a law which demands that people in government and business call people by their preferred title of address. Even going so far as to demand that the business demand that its patrons do the same. That is a violation of Free Speech. Yet fully accepted by many people.

She? Ze? They? What’s In a Gender Pronoun

In New York City, new clarifications to the city’s human rights guidelines make clear that the intentional misidentification of a person’s preferred name, pronoun or title is violation of the city’s anti-discrimination law.

You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use

What’s more, according to the City, “refusal to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.” The label “harassment” is important here because harassment law requires employers and businesses to prevent harassment by co-workers and patrons and not just by themselves or their own employees; this is particularly well established for harassment by co-workers, but it has also been accepted for harassment by fellow patrons. So an employer or business that learns that its employees or patrons are “refus[ing] to use a transgender employee’s preferred” pronoun or title would have to threaten to fire or eject such people unless they comply with the City’s demands. (The logic would also apply to landlords having to threaten to eject tenants who refuse to use co-tenants’ preferred pronouns or titles, but that’s less certain.)

So, do you support this type of thing? Do you support litigation to shut people up? Do you support getting people fired for simply expressing their opinion? Do you support patrons of an establishment getting thrown out for simply not saying "he" to a FtoM Transgender? How far are people willing to go for their safe zones being imposed everywhere?
 
The purpose of law is to balance competing interests and rights. You don't seem to understand that is what it's there for, to provide limits.

When you're in a racist era, making the world safe for racists is not what I have in mind.

History tells us racists always escalate. But you don't have to take my word for it, it's happening.

Yes, BLM now has hundreds of millions of dollars with which to escalate their racist message. So, you're not entirely wrong. Which is amazing in and of itself.
 
Litigation isn't the only thing curbing it. SJW's are also curbing it by costing people their jobs and livelihoods. But yes, litigation is definitely a major player in curbing free speech. Particularly by big corporations and the government. In New York they passed a law which demands that people in government and business call people by their preferred title of address. Even going so far as to demand that the business demand that its patrons do the same. That is a violation of Free Speech. Yet fully accepted by many people.

She? Ze? They? What’s In a Gender Pronoun



You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use



So, do you support this type of thing? Do you support litigation to shut people up? Do you support getting people fired for simply expressing their opinion? Do you support patrons of an establishment getting thrown out for simply not saying "he" to a FtoM Transgender? How far are people willing to go for their safe zones being imposed everywhere?

Nope.
 
Think you're the one that needs to check your history. They created a system of checks and balances alright, but those checks and balances were placed on the government. There were no restrictions placed on The People. And I'd dare you to show one piece of restriction against people in the Constitution.

That is what law is for.

We adopted most of English jurisprudence, which makes your point moot.
 
The purpose of law is to balance competing interests and rights. You don't seem to understand that is what it's there for, to provide limits.

When you're in a racist era, making the world safe for racists is not what I have in mind.

History tells us racists always escalate. But you don't have to take my word for it, it's happening.

What do you have in mind for people you label as racist? I take it you want them not to be safe. Given that just about everyone who disagrees with you about anything is liable to be labeled as racist by you, isn't this just a rationale to attack these people with violence or by other means?
 
What do you have in mind for people you label as racist? I take it you want them not to be safe. Given that just about everyone who disagrees with you about anything is liable to be labeled as racist by you, isn't this just a rationale to attack these people with violence or by other means?

Often when I defend our Rights like Free Speech and Right to Association I often get labeled as racist. Normally because people don't have a valid argument so must resort to ad homs in order to try and "shame" me into shutting up so that they can assert their own idea's that invariably infringe on peoples Rights. They care more about their feelings than they do their own freedoms. Idiocy.
 
Except the court takes care of that, and I don't remember them agreeing with you.

They often agree with me. You need to study up on Constitutional Law more. Besides, despite the rhetoric, the court isn't actually the final arbiter of The Law. Juries are.
 
They often agree with me. You need to study up on Constitutional Law more. Besides, despite the rhetoric, the court isn't actually the final arbiter of The Law. Juries are.

The Supreme Court doesn't have jury trials. But that does help clear things up.
 
The Supreme Court doesn't have jury trials. But that does help clear things up.

No duh. But people may only be convicted of breaking a law via Jury Trials. It is at that time that Juries can nullify the law for that person being charged with a "crime". And unless you get rid of Jury Trials altogether, you'll never be able to eliminate Jury Nullification.
 
Back
Top Bottom