You can say that.

I've always been a big proponent of Free Speech. I've said here before that the entire point of our Right to Free Speech is to protect that which is said which is not popular. Especially and including "hate speech". I've also said before that no matter what I will always defend a persons Rights, EVEN if I personally disagree with that they say. As such I can't say I disagree with Stossel here. In fact, I fully agree with what he says here.

Faux News.

Kal'Stang said:

I've always been a big proponent of Free Speech. I've said here before that the entire point of our Right to Free Speech is to protect that which is said which is not popular. Especially and including "hate speech". I've also said before that no matter what I will always defend a persons Rights, EVEN if I personally disagree with that they say. As such I can't say I disagree with Stossel here. In fact, I fully agree with what he says here.

Click to expand...

I don't have the time to watch the whole video but he is wrong. You can say fire in a crowded theater and it's dangerous myths like that the anti-speech zealots use to justify thier infringement on free speech. If he really cared about free speech maybe he should take the time to get it right.

late said:

Faux News.

Click to expand...

Not relevant to what is being talked about. Instead of dismissing it just because its from a media source you don't like how about standing up and actually try and comment on what is said. Because as it stands your debating style is weaker than my dead grandmother.

Kal'Stang said:

Not relevant to what is being talked about.

Click to expand...

Most videos suck. The ones that don't suck wouldn't get watched here... Fox is a waste of my time, but write something out, and I will rip it to shreds for you. It's the least I can do.

But I can put a down payment on that now. Rotten Tomatos gave it 4% for the butt obvious reason is that it's the same trash Right wing kooks always produce.

Kal'Stang said:

I've always been a big proponent of Free Speech. I've said here before that the entire point of our Right to Free Speech is to protect that which is said which is not popular. Especially and including "hate speech". I've also said before that no matter what I will always defend a persons Rights, EVEN if I personally disagree with that they say. As such I can't say I disagree with Stossel here. In fact, I fully agree with what he says here.

Click to expand...

That is a wonderful piece. I do not know, if every example is as it was described, but together they catch the state of affairs to the T. What surprises me is how so many people seem to believe that restricting free speech in any but the severest situations is in any way viable for a democracy.

late said:

Most videos suck. The ones that don't suck wouldn't get watched here... Fox is a waste of my time, but write something out, and I will rip it to shreds for you. It's the least I can do.

But I can put a down payment on that now. Rotten Tomatos gave it 4% for the butt obvious reason is that it's the same trash Right wing kooks always produce.

Click to expand...

Gave what a 4% rating? and should I be concerned that you spelled tomatoes wrong?

Crovax said:

Gave what a 4% rating? and should I be concerned that you spelled tomatoes wrong?

Click to expand...

Pretty sure that was just his personal view and has nothing to do with the actual business.

Kal'Stang said:

I've always been a big proponent of Free Speech. I've said here before that the entire point of our Right to Free Speech is to protect that which is said which is not popular. Especially and including "hate speech". I've also said before that no matter what I will always defend a persons Rights, EVEN if I personally disagree with that they say. As such I can't say I disagree with Stossel here. In fact, I fully agree with what he says here.

Click to expand...

There is little to disagree with here, and the commentary by Stossel is not bad at all (kinda amazing, I never really listen to the program.)

The collision here is a discussion we have to have now. On the side of Liberty the inherent idea of protecting speech is extending that to speech one might not want to hear with the only exclusion being when exercising one's rights directly harms another (i.e. the old "yelling fire in a crowed theater when there is not a fire, and someone gets trampled in the chaos" debate.) Our issue, that line in the sand, is one we have to discuss now that "directly harms another" has been extended to include being offended by. Politically correct ideology has latched onto the idea of being offended by something (the video likes the phrase "micro aggression") and that has turned the idea of Liberty into being a Modern Liberal's take on things. They tend to agree with Free Speech so long as they agree with what is being said. That is controlled speech and is no longer Liberty.

Where we are politically today illustrates how much of a mess we have made with the idea of Liberty.

We have those on the right looking to champion Trump for wanting to make it easier to file suit over arguably libelous speech (or really going after any media and commentary they disagree with,) and we have those on the left that champion the ideas of politically correct police efforts to control how we talk and "safe spaces" for minorities and others offended by... something. You boil it down and you get the same thing ideologically speaking, where to apply the power of governance to impact an outcome by limiting Liberty.

For me what we are really talking about is the difference between directly harming someone vs. the idea of being protected from being offended. In the former that can be controlled with reasonable legislation that should stand to Constitutional challenge. But the latter presents a series of challenges. One, politically correct speech is a moving target that tends to get on a roll that is not easily stopped (like politically correct gender lists, and all the new letters on LGBT to become LGBTTQQIAAP... or something.)

It has gotten way out of control and what so few want to discuss is how divisive the idea ends up being. We are no further united by limiting Liberty to keep people from being offended, but we are in fact creating manufactured isolated portions of our society which usually leads to division oriented thinking. I suspect we have made matters worse, and marched away from the idea of rights coming with an inherent responsibility in their exercise and in its place inserted the need for government power (or some other authority) to keep us safe from speech we are offended by. It is the forced development of a coward's society where everyone gets to walk around in mobile safe zones, and it is directly contrary to the basic idea of Liberty.

joG said:

That is a wonderful piece. I do not know, if every example is as it was described, but together they catch the state of affairs to the T. What surprises me is how so many people seem to believe that restricting free speech in any but the severest situations is in any way viable for a democracy.

Click to expand...

The irony is everyone is in favor of free speech until that speech goes against them, and then it's renamed as "hate speech" "racist speech" or some other thing. Yes, there is a place for all speech regardless if we individually or socially agree with it. However when you get some who wanted to (in 2005) bring back the defunct Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting (H.R. 501), to curb talk radio which is dominated by the Republicans, we know which side sees the 1st amendment as "optional".

You should be able to say what you want within reason. I wouldn't go into a Jewish deli and order a bacon burger while badmouthing Jewish traditions, nor would I go into into any other ME restaurant and insist on ordering something that is against their religion, just to follow up with some juicy comments about the same.
Why wouldn't I? Because I was raised better. I don't mean to offend on purpose. But I deserve the right to speak my mind. Please except that I say "God bless you" when you sneeze, or when I say that both Trump and Clinton are very poor choices for president, regardless how you feel about them. Let me speak. Let me say that the vile and ill advised protesters, those who threaten and destroy, are low life thugs and don't automatically assume that I am racist.
There they are, destroying and cheering each other. Wait. Are they complaining about the announced KKK rally in NC while exercising what they think is their right only?
Honest dialogue is what it boils down to, honest yet respectful of others. Right?

OrphanSlug said:

It is the forced development of a coward's society where everyone gets to walk around in mobile safe zones, and it is directly contrary to the basic idea of Liberty.

Click to expand...

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.

late said:

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.

Click to expand...

The only thing that Rights should be balanced against is other Rights. The Right to say something should never be limited just because it goes against the interests of X person/group. That would lead to even more inequality. Which means that there is no balance.

And no, racists are not escalating. That is nothing more than propaganda.

late said:

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.

Click to expand...

What history really tells us, conclusively without exception, is the moment Liberty is discarded for government control over speech and thought the result is oppression.

Under systems of governance that lean towards the Liberty of people, the real purpose of law is to protect those Liberties and Rights from violations and intrusions by other people, organizations, and especially *government.*

The whole point of Liberty is having to deal with things you do not want to hear, things you do not want to see, and from people you do not agree with. The moment you try to apply a slide rule to where the safe zone is happens to be the very same moment you leave to political whim where that line is.

You and I both know that is not concrete, you hand to government the power to limit Liberty you end up with their moving target of what you can say, what you can see, and from whom.

late said:

Faux News.

Click to expand...

A video from Faux News.

Are you disputing the video? Or Faux News?

late said:

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.

Click to expand...

History tells us that people whose chief goal for law is to limit the rights of people he disagrees with always escalate, too.

Crovax said:

I don't have the time to watch the whole video but he is wrong. You can say fire in a crowded theater and it's dangerous myths like that the anti-speech zealots use to justify thier infringement on free speech. If he really cared about free speech maybe he should take the time to get it right.

Click to expand...

Here's the Amendment. It's purpose is to protect citizens from the government. Our speech is abridged almost every day. Not by government, however.

Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

Harshaw said:

History tells us that people whose chief goal for law is to limit the rights of people he disagrees with always escalate, too.

Click to expand...

You just called the Founding Fathers extremists.

If it wasn't so laughably childish, I'd be pissed.

late said:

You just called the Founding Fathers extremists.

If it wasn't so laughably childish, I'd be pissed.

Click to expand...

The Founding Fathers most emphatically did not seek to limit the rights of people they disagreed with.

The only thing laughably childish here is your claim that they did.

Harshaw said:

The Founding Fathers most emphatically did not seek to limit the rights of people they disagreed with.

The only thing laughably childish here is your claim that they did.

Click to expand...

They created a system of checks and balances, even in law. As I pointed out, the intent was to balance competing rights and interests.

You might want to learn the history of your country...

late said:

They created a system of checks and balances, even in law. As I pointed out, the intent was to balance competing rights and interests.

You might want to learn the history of your country...

Click to expand...

Now you're flailing miserably. "Checks and balances" is not seeking to limit the rights of people they disagreed with.

What YOU say is what's offensive to the legacy of the Founders.

Ockham said:

The irony is everyone is in favor of free speech until that speech goes against them,.......

Click to expand...

That is why you cannot make exceptions to the free speech right.

Kal'Stang said:

I've always been a big proponent of Free Speech. I've said here before that the entire point of our Right to Free Speech is to protect that which is said which is not popular. Especially and including "hate speech". I've also said before that no matter what I will always defend a persons Rights, EVEN if I personally disagree with that they say. As such I can't say I disagree with Stossel here. In fact, I fully agree with what he says here.

Click to expand...

"Speech" is just speech. The problem comes with what results speech creates.

late said:

They created a system of checks and balances, even in law. As I pointed out, the intent was to balance competing rights and interests.

You might want to learn the history of your country...

Click to expand...

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 The People in the Constitution.

jet57 said:

"Speech" is just speech. The problem comes with what results speech creates.

Click to expand...

So restrict it for things that people don't like because......?