Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 230

Thread: Hating Free Speech

  1. #11
    Sage
    Tigerace117's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,957

    Re: Hating Free Speech

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGoverness View Post
    His quote is definitely right on the $, though. Freedom of speech means protecting speech that you (general you) don't necessarily like.
    But when somebody says something which would lead to violence down the road, or supports such violence, or tried to ruin somebody else's life by lying.....there's no reason why **** like that should be protected, you know?

  2. #12
    Little Miss Sunshine
    TheGoverness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Nacogdoches, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    24,529

    Re: Hating Free Speech

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerace117 View Post
    But when somebody says something which would lead to violence down the road, or supports such violence, or tried to ruin somebody else's life by lying.....there's no reason why **** like that should be protected, you know?
    Well of course. Incitement of violence and libel should not be protected speech.
    "Everyone makes mistakes. It's what makes us human."
    CLASS OF 2021
    PRIDE


  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Now in the mountains.
    Last Seen
    09-10-17 @ 08:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,650

    Re: Hating Free Speech

    free speech, in Amendment I, is free political speech.

    No, it does not cover you telling the boss to eat his shorts.

    No, it does protect the manager telling his pitcher to bean the batter.

    No, the mob boss does not get to tell his hit man, "get Syphlin and Angel, get me a twofor."

    Libel and incitement to physical harm are not covered.

  4. #14
    Teacher of All Things


    Josie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    28,760

    Re: Hating Free Speech

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerace117 View Post
    But when somebody says something which would lead to violence down the road, or supports such violence, or tried to ruin somebody else's life by lying.....there's no reason why **** like that should be protected, you know?
    Sometimes people get angry by other people's opinions -- so angry that they become violent. That doesn't mean that person has no right to say it just because an idiot goes psycho. If the speaker is literally calling for violence, THAT isn't and should never be protected speech.


  5. #15
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Hating Free Speech

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerace117 View Post
    But when somebody says something which would lead to violence down the road, or supports such violence, or tried to ruin somebody else's life by lying.....there's no reason why **** like that should be protected, you know?
    your posting is subjective.

    speech which with the intent to insight violence his not protected

    speech which causes lost of property, revenue, or ruins a persons name from which that person derives income is not protected



    speech which offends, makes people angry is protected

  6. #16
    ****
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rentin way too much space in your head
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    77,461

    Re: Hating Free Speech

    Free speech is the government has no right to restrict it.


    If you come to my kids pool party, cursing up a storm, will get you booted, there is no such thing as free speech on my property.
    You should try to remember, ideas are conveyed by researching information, vetting sources, and confirming said information. Not by regurgitating talking points given to you by your "news" station.
    Don't hate me 'cause I'm beautiful, but hate me all the more.

  7. #17
    Guru
    MrWonka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,714

    Re: Hating Free Speech

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    Save insofar as speech is treasonous or incites to physical harm, it ought to be protected and, beyond cases of slander or libel, ought not to be actionable at all.
    That's it.
    All the rest we find ourselves mooting today under the rubric of freedom of speech is the upshot of Progressive distortion and must be exposed for the political rubbish it is.
    Do you have some kind of a point here? Are you expecting someone to disagree with you? Can you site an example where you think freedom of speech is being abridged so we can better understand your concerns here?

    Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want without consequences. It means you have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want without consequences FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

    Freedom of speech does not mean that a private entity has to give you a forum to spout garbage. It does not mean anybody has to listen to you. It does not mean that individuals have no right to judge you based on the quality and rationality of your speech. It does not mean people cannot protest your speech. It does not mean you are entitled to million dollar book deals for spouting garbage. It does not mean you are allowed to troll online forums and personally attack people who are trying to have a rational debate.

    What I see in this country is that liberals are trying to have a rational discussion, however conservatives entire point of view is one massive personal attack. Their whole entire argument is in and of itself an ad hominem. They want to argue that certain groups of people are lessor forms of humanity, but there is no way to engage in a rational and respectful debate on such a topic because your whole entire argument is a formal fallacy which negates your argument right out of the gate.

    There is simply no way for you to argue that a group of people does not deserve respect while being respectful about it. Therefore liberals are left with no choice, but to shut down their entire garbage argument from the outset. Their argument is like an airplane without wings, it can't even get off the ground because it lacks the single most important thing necessary in a rational debate.... i.e. respectful discourse.
    Last edited by MrWonka; 05-25-17 at 12:32 PM.

  8. #18
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Hating Free Speech

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    Free speech is the government has no right to restrict it.


    If you come to my kids pool party, cursing up a storm, will get you booted, there is no such thing as free speech on my property.
    would you be surprised, that not all people know this

  9. #19
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,225

    Re: Hating Free Speech

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Now the question is...
    They're definitely some interesting questions. But they're also a lot trickier than your analogy tries to depict (which, as someone who loves analogies, I understand is often the case).

    Mob boss says to hitman 1, "I would like to see Mr. Zulu dead."

    College kid says to his buddy while out drinking after they both flunked a test, "I would like to see Professor Zulu dead."

    Same statement, yet circumstances are different. The mob boss likely has a history of ordering hits, with a record miles long of the ambiguous ways he's done it allowing for a pattern to form in order to assign definitive meaning and intent to it. The hitman, by the notion of such a profession, likely is a person who has been knowingly involved in various crimes and murders and is thus someone with a means of actually carrying such a request out. There are factors at play within the context of such a scenario that would likely allow for an arrest, and a reasonable one at that, if the conversation was heard prior to action being taken.

    With the college kids, likely not? Probably little to no criminal history. Little reason to think the first kid believes the second one has the means to fulfill the request and thus is asking it. No pattern of the vague language connecting to future action (i.e. "he needs to go to sleep. Permanently." --> guy is found dead 2 days later). There's no real reason why it should really even be worried about here (now if it grew into a pattern, then that changes the equation).

    There's also this strange fine line between vocalizing a desire to see something, or feeling like something should happen, and actually advocating for or inciting the specific bit of criminality. Added to that, as well, is the actual plausibility of ones speech having any kind of legitimately tangible harming impact. Take these past few months, for instance, regarding Donald Trump. Strewn across places on the net, for example Reddit, you will find all sorts of interesting comments of people vocalizing their desire for, or even the belief of a need for, all sorts of mishaps to happen to him; from violent acts of sodomy to death. Yet despite these things, they rarely cross the line of actively attempting to directly and with intent coerce a person to make such acts occur and thus are largely benign forms of political expression. Similarly, online political agitation is, ultimately, one that is extremely unlikely to actually cause any tangible harm, leading to a high burden to cross to try and really stifle it.

  10. #20
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,225

    Re: Hating Free Speech

    And then finally there's just the nature of politicians, wordplay, and language. Even with the example you use, while what you think they mean is indeed most likely accurate and what jumps to many peoples mind, the fact of the matter is that is not what they are saying. It just factually is not. In such a case, what you're suggesting would not be acting on the actual language but on the guess of what they mean. Acting based on assumption. This is very different than the mob boss in some ways, but actually similar in ways that make it difficult.

    One of the common themes you hear with regards to criminal organizations is that they're extremely good at communicating about their criminal enterprises without actually being blatant about their meaning. Its exactly this type of ambiguity that can allow them to slip by at times. It takes significant evidence tying together the language cues to the actual out comes, and establishing a clear link between those outcomes and the individual making the statement, to take am ambiguous claim and declare it one with a clear harmful criminal intent.

    She could claim the final solution is to deport them. It could be to convert them. It could be to deradicalize them. It could be to westernize them. It could be to socialize ostracize them. Hell, she could claim she does not know what the final solution may be, but that it simply must be found and should occur. Would she be playing coy? Absolutely. Is it likely that this vile woman is actually suggesting a holocaust? Quite possible. However, unless this agitator is an octogenarian I imagine she doesn't have a history of actually engaging in such things. I'm also imagining that she has not outright called for the extermination, eradiation, and death of all muslims or all within a certain area or else you would've used that far more blatant example to compare it to the mob boss. So unlike the mob boss, there is far too many assumptive leaps and guesses one must make to be able to label speech such as that as legitimately criminal.

    Horrific and worthy of condemnation? Absolutely. The type of ignorant and bigoted language that should be battled against? Without question. But the dangers of allowing fools like that to speak their words are lesser than those posed when we cede to government the ability to incarcerate and strip away our freedoms based on assumption and guesses. And the value of the ideal of free speech is worth more and is of greater importance to a civilized world than the cost that allowing such idiocy to be spoken may carry.

Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •