• 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!

Hating Free Speech

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."

That kind of kills your argument.... crap said while "not of full mind and body" is more than often not taken seriously. Also 2 college kids are not exactly figures of power or influence.. I mean who on earth would go and kill Professor Zulu for these 2 kids? No one I suspect. Now the mob boss is a figure of power and influence, as is the political commentator or politician or religious head. People listen and follow them.. and that is where the problem starts.

I am not saying it is easy, but claiming "free speech for all" no matter what, is an universally bad idea and frankly not practised anywhere. For one, there should be consequences for spreading lies, especially if lies cause damage (financial or material).
 
His quote is definitely right on the $, though. Freedom of speech means protecting speech that you (general you) don't necessarily like.

True, there used to be an old motto way back when, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it." There has been many times lately where I think that once great American motto has been tossed upon the trash heap of history.
 
Interesting...Utah just passed a law making cyber bullying a crime...and free speech advocates think the bill is unconstitutional. But imo...the bill is protecting the right to privacy and doesn't infringe on free speech...and have yet to hear a good counter argument why it would.
Utah gets this right, as I see it. And it is a privacy question, as you say. And a matter of bullying, which is a kind of assault, I suppose. I don't see it as a free speech issue at all.
 
Did you not read post#21
No, once someone begins replying directly to me, it's common I only read posts which directly respond to me.

B justifies A, as I see the matter.
I'm sorry, but you didn't answer the main question I asked you. Allow me to provide it once more:

"Then why say this: "the upshot of Progressive distortion and must be exposed for the political rubbish it is"?

Furthermore, what do harassment policies at a company have to do with any of this, as it is commonly known that "freedom of speech" is only a protected right in America as stated under the 1st Amendment, which deals only with the government? And if you're not talking about harassment policies, then to what societal/legal drift do you refer?
 
Utah gets this right, as I see it. And it is a privacy question, as you say. And a matter of bullying, which is a kind of assault, I suppose. I don't see it as a free speech issue at all.

Thats good, because from what I've seen...it's mostly the far-rightwing that is committing most of the cyber bullying.
 
No, once someone begins replying directly to me, it's common I only read posts which directly respond to me.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer the main question I asked you. Allow me to provide it once more:

"Then why say this: "the upshot of Progressive distortion and must be exposed for the political rubbish it is"?

Furthermore, what do harassment policies at a company have to do with any of this, as it is commonly known that "freedom of speech" is only a protected right in America as stated under the 1st Amendment, which deals only with the government? And if you're not talking about harassment policies, then to what societal/legal drift do you refer?
I'm talking about "semantic creep," semantic creep spearheaded by Progressive activism, activism that impacts courts of law and legislation. So my answer is B justifies A in the OP.
 
I'm talking about "semantic creep,"
And I asked you of what creep you speak, specifically in the instance you referenced regarding workplace harassment policies. Are you just not going to ever answer the question?

semantic creep spearheaded by Progressive activism
You're really starting to hurt Zyphlin's position right now, I hope you know that.

Again, what does "progressive" anything have to do with anything? What exactly are you trying to say?
 
And I asked you of what creep you speak, specifically in the instance you referenced regarding workplace harassment policies. Are you just not going to ever answer the question?
...
Again, what does "progressive" anything have to do with anything? What exactly are you trying to say?
I've answered your question three times, my friend. What exactly are you trying not to understand? Progressive influence in America has already changed the law on sexual harassment and rape. It bids fare to do the same as regards speech. B justifies A. That's the fourth time answering your question. There won't be a fifth. :)
 
I've answered your question three times, my friend.
No, you've responded to my post, but you haven't answered my question. All you've done is provide vague mantra and then blame "progressive" thinking for its ruination.

Progressive influence in America has already changed the law on sexual harassment and rape. It bids fare to do the same as regards speech.
So your complaint is that you can no longer verbally harass someone sexually, without someone else expressing their opinion (a firing, perhaps) on your speech and you're afraid this will carry over to other forms of speech. In other words, "So what you're saying is speech you agree with is okay, but speech you disagree with isn't?"

Man, I sure did call that one. Zyphlin, if you're still reading, I believe you owe me an apology. Angel has ticked off all the correct boxes...he blames "progressive distortion/activism/influence" for the fact workplaces are allowed to institute policies (which is THEIR freedom of expression/speech) regarding sexual harassment at work (or, in the future, other things their employee may express). In other words, he wants people to be allowed to say what they want, without others being allowed to express their view on that speech. And he blames this on "progressive distortion/activism/influence".

I'll accept that apology any time. :)
 
No, you've responded to my post, but you haven't answered my question. All you've done is provide vague mantra and then blame "progressive" thinking for its ruination.

So your complaint is that you can no longer verbally harass someone sexually, without someone else expressing their opinion (a firing, perhaps) on your speech and you're afraid this will carry over to other forms of speech. In other words, "So what you're saying is speech you agree with is okay, but speech you disagree with isn't?"

Man, I sure did call that one. Zyphlin, if you're still reading, I believe you owe me an apology. Angel has ticked off all the correct boxes...he blames "progressive distortion/activism/influence" for the fact workplaces are allowed to institute policies (which is THEIR freedom of expression/speech) regarding sexual harassment at work (or, in the future, other things their employee may express). In other words, he wants people to be allowed to say what they want, without others being allowed to express their view on that speech. And he blames this on "progressive distortion/activism/influence".
And you're full of ****, my friend. I'm talking about courts of law and legislation. The Progressive wolf is showing through the Moderate clothing, yes? Now go crying to teacher because someone disagrees with you.
 
I'm talking about courts of law and legislation.
"Societal drift" is not court of law or legislation, but is, however, something you claimed earlier in the thread. Try again.

The Progressive wolf is showing through the Moderate clothing, yes?
So now I'm no longer a "moderate" but rather a "progressive" because I disagreed with you and pointed out the hypocritical nature of your position. How interesting.

It's always nice to be vindicated.

Now go crying to teacher because someone disagrees with you.
This doesn't even make sense. I'm disagreeing with you and pointing out the nonsense of your position. To whom exactly do you feel I'm "crying"?
 
That kind of kills your argument

Actually, both things you point out makes my argument. Hell one thing you point out is an actual argument I literally made in my post. I mean, it's so similar to an actual point I made in my post that it sincerely makes me wonder if you actually bothered to read it, or if you just got a few sentences in and was like "welp, I get his gist, time to tell him all the ways he's wrong".

Yes, one of the points I was making was that the words themselves are only a fraction of the story as to the potential level of criminality involved. And I see no one saying that it should me "no matter what" as if it should be absolutely limitless, that's a red herring. Simply because someone may not want the level of criminalizing speech based on assumptions, guessing, and presentation as you do is not the same as believing that it need be limitless.
 
"Societal drift" is not court of law or legislation, but is, however, something you claimed earlier in the thread. Try again.
Are you aware that you misquote me here, or is the intellectual dishonesty accidental?
Here is what I posted:
I am concerned about the societal/legal drift represented by the point of view expressed below. Aren't you?
And in a later post I make explicit for you the dynamic of this "societal/legal drift."
So for God's sake let's just disagree and leave it at that. The distortions and grandstanding are unnecessary.
 
You're really starting to hurt Zyphlin's position right now, I hope you know that.

Not at all, because none of his words since his op has anything to do with my interpretation of what his OP was saying.

My interpretation of his stance in his OP was based on his actual stance. Yours was based on your desire to stereotype folks, by ignoring his actual claim on the matter (his view on how to determine what speech should be allowed) and instead focusing on his partisan aside and simply assigning him the view you think fit the stereotype you pegged him as.

What he came to say later doesn't change the reasonableness of my original interpretation, nor the shallowness of yours. In terms of overall accuracy of his views, you are correct. Congratulations, your stereotyping proved to be more accurate than taking him for his word.

Reminds me of a South Park episode. Cartman wants to start a band. He tells Token to go get the bass out of his basement and play it. Token tells him to he doesn't own a bass and can't play. Cartman tells him he's black, yes he does and yes he can. And sure enough, Token had a bass and could play it.

Tokens logic was entirely sound for saying he didn't have or know how to play a bass; he never bought one, never saw one in his house, never held or practiced with one.

Cartman had no logic to back his argument up other than his bigoted stereotype that Token was black, therefore of course.

Cartman turned out right and Token was wrong. Didn't make Cartman any less of a stereotyping asshole, or Tokens confusion at Cartmans request any less reasonable.

So you lazily stereotyped someone in your head and pidgeon holed them, and it ended up that in this case it was right. Cool, here's your golf clap. But I have zero apologies for not playing that same kind of low effort game myself, no will they be coming. His "progressive" comment had zero context in his OP of listing what kind of language he stated should be disallowed. Thus why it was, appropriately, not mentioned. Thus why your only way to tie it to the contorted way you described his view was by using his use of it as the basis of your stereotype for him.
 
Last edited:
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.

Perhaps you could start a thread on this? I'd like some evidence for this but this is not the thread to do it in.
 
Are you aware that you misquote me here, or is the intellectual dishonesty accidental?
Here is what I posted:

And in a later post I make explicit for you the dynamic of this "societal/legal drift."
So for God's sake let's just disagree and leave it at that. The distortions and grandstanding are unnecessary.

I know this is crazy to some people, but instead of trying to play "gotcha" I'm going to try t I actually have a discussion and debate if let's and to do that it means actually trying to understand what the **** someone actually is saying, not just trying to railroad them by grabbing a word or two they say and running full steam ahead with the narrative.

With regards to the changes in rape and harassment laws that you say have been incrementally changing due to progressivism; are you suggesting those changes are good or bad? Also, are you suggesting the means of those changes (via attempting to shift the societal mindset on the matter)is somehow illegitimate or unconstitutional, simply a means you dislike, or simply one you dislike because it pushed it in a way you did not approve (for instance, many on the religious right who may dislike those shifts may call for a societal mindset shift towards a less sexually open society).

As it relates to such drift when it comes to speech; do you think that then justifies stifling speech that adds to that societal drift? Or is the potential to use free speech to push for such a drift simply the cost of having free speech? When you say it must be protected, are you meaning from government action and censorship, or somehow protected even from private entities trying to stifle it (for example, protests towards a speaker at a private university)?

Do you think Chomskys quote means that you must not voice displeasure, disagreement, or displeasure with speech you dislike....or simply that you should not call on the government to censor it?

Do you think erotic literature, or erotic talk, is free speech? If so, how do you justify the governments regulation of it or do you? If not, then how does it fit into the categories you listed in your OP? And how is something like that in any way a thing you can lay at the feet of progressives as opposed to the religious right. I will ask you the same about explicit music, and about violent video games; again, two forms of speech and expression that are regulated that do not directly harm anyone that was pushed primarily not by progressives but by those identifying as conservatives.

What instances of restrictions on free speech that are currently at play can you give that are examples of ones caused by progressivism as you claim in your OP?

You seem to be upset that you're not being asked fair questions; I think you'd be hard pressed to say those aren't fair.
 
wc7JJgK.jpg

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.

The Supreme Court has made clear that slander and libel are not the only forms of speech which are not protected by the First Amendment. Neither are publication of government secrets, obscenity, or child pornography.

Also, not all speech which "incites to physical harm" is unprotected. As the Court said in Brandenburg v. Ohio,

"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Note that intent, imminence, and likelihood are all required under this test.
 
I know this is crazy to some people, but instead of trying to play "gotcha" I'm going to try t I actually have a discussion and debate if let's and to do that it means actually trying to understand what the **** someone actually is saying, not just trying to railroad them by grabbing a word or two they say and running full steam ahead with the narrative.
Far from crazy. A breath of fresh air.

With regards to the changes in rape and harassment laws that you say have been incrementally changing due to progressivism; are you suggesting those changes are good or bad?
Some good, some bad. We as a society want to deter sexual harassment, but we don't want to compromise careers and lives as a result of the vagueness and subjectivity of the offense.
Rape law crosses over into unreasonableness in some of its late developments concerning consent.
Also, are you suggesting the means of those changes (via attempting to shift the societal mindset on the matter)is somehow illegitimate or unconstitutional, simply a means you dislike, or simply one you dislike because it pushed it in a way you did not approve (for instance, many on the religious right who may dislike those shifts may call for a societal mindset shift towards a less sexually open society).
No, the activism that brought about these changes is perfectly legitimate.
As it relates to such drift when it comes to speech; do you think that then justifies stifling speech that adds to that societal drift?
Absolutely not. I don't respect Progressive thinking, but I defend the Progressive's right to think aloud.
Or is the potential to use free speech to push for such a drift simply the cost of having free speech?
That's right.
When you say it must be protected, are you meaning from government action and censorship, or somehow protected even from private entities trying to stifle it (for example, protests towards a speaker at a private university)?
From government certainly. On the campus as well, but there it must take the form of moral suasion.

Do you think Chomskys quote means that you must not voice displeasure, disagreement, or displeasure with speech you dislike....or simply that you should not call on the government to censor it?
The latter. Voicing displeasure about speech is part and parcel of free expression.
Do you think erotic literature, or erotic talk, is free speech? If so, how do you justify the governments regulation of it or do you? If not, then how does it fit into the categories you listed in your OP? And how is something like that in any way a thing you can lay at the feet of progressives as opposed to the religious right. I will ask you the same about explicit music, and about violent video games; again, two forms of speech and expression that are regulated that do not directly harm anyone that was pushed primarily not by progressives but by those identifying as conservatives.
I'm against censorship of any kind.

What instances of restrictions on free speech that are currently at play can you give that are examples of ones caused by progressivism as you claim in your OP?
The courts have been good in First Amendment cases so far as regards hate speech. I'm afraid legislation will go the way of rape and harassment law over time. I don't like the category itself, hate speech. I should be free to dislike and criticize any individual or group as my conscience dictates without fear of legal reprisal.
You seem to be upset that you're not being asked fair questions; I think you'd be hard pressed to say those aren't fair.
Very fair. But I'm not upset. I just seem upset sometimes. It's the Italian in me. Now that I've met you, I'm delighted in fact.:)
 
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?

No reason other than the First Amendment. Are there other parts of the Bill of Rights you also disdain?
 
I agree with the OP, if I understand him right, that statists generally do not support the First Amendment very strongly. They tend to adore political correctness, for example, an idea which is by its very nature hostile to the freedom of speech. Statists also tend to dislike religious believers and want to limit their religious freedoms.
 
Not at all, because none of his words since his op has anything to do with my interpretation of what his OP was saying.
But it DOES have to do with your assessment of my post, now doesn't it? Because it turned out my post WAS an accurate representation of his thought process and it most certainly was not dishonest.

My interpretation of his stance in his OP was based on his actual stance.
Except, as we came to see later in the thread, it wasn't. It was the stance he wanted people to think he was taking (and maybe even thought he was taking), but it wasn't his actual stance. His actual stance was EXACTLY what I said it was.

I was right and you were not. I wonder why you are working so hard to not admit that.

Yours was based on your desire to stereotype folks, by ignoring his actual claim on the matter (his view on how to determine what speech should be allowed) and instead focusing on his partisan aside and simply assigning him the view you think fit the stereotype you pegged him as.
You mean the view he later came to acknowledge, correct?

What he came to say later doesn't change the reasonableness of my original interpretation
I'll grant you leeway with your interpretation, for I can believe it is perhaps what he thought he meant. But, as we found out later, it really wasn't what he actually wanted, it was just another in a long line of whining about "progressives" and free speech, a topic on this forum almost as old as Hillary's e-mails or the Bush recession.

No, my issue with your post wasn't about your interpretation, but rather your false accusation of dishonesty in mine. And we know it was a false accusation because my post was proven correct. In that case, what he came later to say DOES change the reasonableness of your post, when it comes to the part of your post where you insulted mine.

Which is why I said I believe you owe me an apology.

nor the shallowness of yours.
Mine wasn't shallow at all. It was accurate. And your seeming insinuation I accidentally fell into the correct response to this thread is just nonsense, for reasons I mentioned in my last post to you.

In terms of overall accuracy of his views, you are correct.
Which means you were wrong when you said, "it looks incredibly dishonest".

So will you apologize for YOUR stereotyping which caused your shallow reply?

Congratulations, your stereotyping proved to be more accurate than taking him for his word.
I didn't stereotype him, I read his post, saw the code words and made an informed post based on that. I didn't luck into it, as you are seemingly trying to suggest.

Reminds me of a South Park episode. Cartman wants to start a band. He tells Token to go get the bass out of his basement and play it. Token tells him to he doesn't own a bass and can't play. Cartman tells him he's black, yes he does and yes he can. And sure enough, Token had a bass and could play it.
Great episode. Faith + 1.

Cartman had no logic to back his argument up other than his bigoted stereotype that Token was black, therefore of course.

Cartman turned out right and Token was wrong. Didn't make Cartman any less of a stereotyping asshole, or Tokens confusion at Cartmans request any less reasonable.
While I appreciate the fact you are a fan of one of my favorite episodes of South Park, there's a key difference in this situation and South Park. In this situation, I had actual evidence of his opinion based on his words. Cartman used unrelated and arbitrary factors to come to his conclusion...I used the poster's words. It's a big difference.

So you lazily stereotyped someone in your head and pidgeon holed them
Bless your heart, you sure are trying your best to distract from how you were wrong. I guess an apology is too much to ask, eh?

It wasn't lazy, it was informed and insightful. I even told you the words which tipped me off to his intention, long before his intention was out in the open. For you to insinuate I lucked into a correct guess is...how did you put it? "Actually, it looks incredibly dishonest."

Yes, that's it.

His "progressive" comment had zero context in his OP
Exactly. That's exactly my point. There was absolutely ZERO reason for it to be included...unless he was making the argument I correctly noted he was making. There's almost no other reason for the comment, except merely to regurgitate the same nonsense which gets pushed on this forum all the time.

Rather than try to insult me for having the insight for noticing it, how about you just admit you missed the clue (or mistakenly ignored it) and apologize to me for being wrong?
 
I know this is crazy to some people, but instead of trying to play "gotcha" I'm going to try t I actually have a discussion and debate if let's and to do that it means actually trying to understand what the **** someone actually is saying, not just trying to railroad them by grabbing a word or two they say and running full steam ahead with the narrative.
I agree with the OP, if I understand him right, that statists generally do not support the First Amendment very strongly. They tend to adore political correctness, for example, an idea which is by its very nature hostile to the freedom of speech. Statists also tend to dislike religious believers and want to limit their religious freedoms.
Zyphlin, perhaps instead of being so opposed to "gotcha", you work instead to be opposed to those who think exactly the way I noted.

Perhaps a discussion on free speech would be a greater possibility if there weren't so many comments, such as matchlight's post, which seem to think "freedom of speech" is a one way street and complain when others exercise theirs.

Consider that my invitation to discussion and debate. How would you address those who claim to want free speech, but then hate the idea of others also expressing their speech? Take "political correctness" for example. Political correctness IS freedom of speech. Contrary to matchlight's position, political correctness is the very definition of free speech, but so many don't understand that. They want to be free to say offensive things to others, but then never be held responsible to the freedom of others' speech. In other words, speech they agree with is okay, but speech they do not agree with is not.

How do you address those people and get them to see the error of their ways?
 
Last edited:
wc7JJgK.jpg

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.

Bahahaha you had a solid point until you spoiled it with your intolerance for progressives.

Oh this is so ironic. You're embracing a faux "freedom of speech" to grant artificial (and erroneous) legitimacy to your culture war jab.
 
I agree with the OP, if I understand him right, that statists generally do not support the First Amendment very strongly. They tend to adore political correctness, for example, an idea which is by its very nature hostile to the freedom of speech. Statists also tend to dislike religious believers and want to limit their religious freedoms.

Your loathing for "statist" views undermines your alleged support of the virtuous half of the OP.
 
Back
Top Bottom