• 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

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

Why? No one who loves freedom and American democratic values could have any time for statists. Their political views are un-American to the core, but I want them to be given every chance to yap and prattle. Whenever they do, they give away their true nature.
 
**** me. It's 2:10 am. I spent the past 25 minutes dozing in and out while trying to hen peck a reply on my phone at the start of my memorial day vacation, only to accidently hit a button that reset the screen and deleted the entire post.

FML

If thread is still going on in 4 days I'll wander back and try to respond. So annoyed right now.

Anyone acting like just one side tries to encroach on free speech is fooling oneself. I even already pointed that out in this thread, listing three specific examples.

And political correctness is not inherently freedom of speech. Political correctness is just an idea, a notion or method of speaking. As a notion, it can be used in ways that are in line with free speech and in ways that hamper it. It is only by definition free speech in the sense that basicaly all types of speech, by definition, is capable of being free speech.

Someone advocating for people to be politicaly correct is using their free speech. Someone choosing to speak politically correct is doing so as well.

If you are arguing and advocating that a person should be ostracized by society for being politically incorrect unless they remain quiet or cease saying such things, you are using your free speech to attempt to silence their free speech, but doing so in a constitional manner. You are still arguing against the essential basis of the right to free speech by striving to create a situation where the individual is forced to silence themselves or be significantly harmed for it, but not arguing for a violation of the first amendment which protects individuals from the GOVERNMENT violating this right.

If you are arguing and advocating to enshrined into law or regulation some form of political correctness, then you are using your free speech to try and restrict another's through an arguably unconstitutional means.

So i.e.

John Doe calls women on his local radio show "chicks" continually.

1. Person one writes an op-ed in their local paper explaining why that term is antiquated and insulting and should no longer be used, and why John Doe should be ashamed of himself as should his listeners.

2. Angered by the use of thr word and desiring to see John Doe lose his show as an outlet for the views he dislikes, Person two rallies people on reddit and message boards from outside of town, along with some in town, to flood advertisers with form letters demanding they will boycott unless they pull out of support for the show.

3. Person 3 manages to get a new FCC regulation put in that fines a station $100 for referring to a woman as a "chick"

I have no problem with one.

I think number 2 is going against the spirit of free speech, but is constitional and I don't really have a problem with people engaging in it though I personally am not a fan. Goes back to I don't like it, I think it's antithetical to the ideal of free speech, but I believe in the ideal of free speech so I don't agree with the idea that we need to somehow silence or ostracize such people for their actions.

The third, I would begin to have an issue.

Admittedly, the whole thing becomes a chicken and the egg type thing.

I mean even here. You are complaing about matchlight complaining about some liberals complaining some conservatives complaining about some other random thing.

**** why did I keep typing so much. God damn. Go to sleep you idiot (Me, me is the idiot I'm referring to).

Also you can't look at the camera on an album cover butters!
 
The only cogent point in your post. ;)

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.
Your intellectual dishonesty precedes you, citizen, and continues here with your conflation of the advocacy of a concept and the concept itself in order to score points. Speaking out for political correctness in speech is one thing, and as a form of expression must be allowed; political correctness, however, the concept of political correctness is the enemy of free expression.
 
I am concerned about the societal/legal drift represented by the point of view expressed below. Aren't you?

No. The purpose of freedom of speech is to insure people are allowed to freely express ideas. It's important for all ideas to be heard as a part of a rational debate to insure we're not missing anything. But hate speech is not an idea. Hate speech is ignorance. Hate speech is the opposite of an idea. People should still be allowed to speak it, but limiting where and when to avoid obvious and intentional harassment is fine by me.

I view it like the Westboro Baptists. If they really want to protest the funeral of a fallen soldier that's fine, but not standing right outside the gate of a funeral. Or another example. In the town I went to college there was an adult book store. There was a right wing nut who would stand right outside the door every single day with a sign shaming people for going into it. The court ruled that he was interfering with a legitimate business that had every right to operate. He was therefore required to move his protest to at least 100 yards of the store front while they were open for business. Another good example is abortion protesters who stand right outside of planned parenthood and other abortion clinics. Desperately trying to shame women for doing something that they have every right to do.

**** bags like Milo Yannopoulos and Ann Coulter do not need to give speeches on left wing college campuses so that we can hear different view points. We already know what they have to say. They do not want to do it to inform anybody. They are nothing but trolls who are intentionally trying to flame others, then claim that the other side are snowflakes for not being able to handle their intentional harassment. In a world where Trump is president, gays, lesbians, Muslims, Atheists, Jews, and women have every reason to fear for their lives. When the republican party can literally beat up a reporter for asking them a question, and still win an election it Conservatives in this country who need to be be better informed. It is liberals who need to be going into conservative strong holds and giving speeches, not the other way around.
 
The only cogent point in your post. ;)

Clearly you don't understand what's actually going on since you elected to whine only about progressives.

Competing political ideologies are literally at war with one another. Ideas are waves that are sent and received by us, human agents. Speech is the major mechanism of transmission.

Now, if i want to defeat your ideology, i don't need to silence you. I can let you speak. Your anti-progressive ideology is weak. In your weakness, you could not address my speech. That is demonstrated by your cowardly avoidance above.
 
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.

Clearly you don't understand what's actually going on since you elected to whine only about progressives.

Competing political ideologies are literally at war with one another. Ideas are waves that are sent and received by us, human agents. Speech is the major mechanism of transmission.

Now, if i want to defeat your ideology, i don't need to silence you. I can let you speak. Your anti-progressive ideology is weak. In your weakness, you could not address my speech. That is demonstrated by your cowardly avoidance above.
Addressing your posts? You guffaw at me in one. You spin my criticism of Progressives into intolerance. You categorize me as on one side of the cultural war, based on the aforesaid criticism. And you call me a coward. What's to address? You're a new-wave Liberal. Name-calling and political spin are your stock in trade.;)
 
Addressing your posts? You guffaw at me in one. You spin my criticism of Progressives into intolerance. You categorize me as on one side of the cultural war, based on the aforesaid criticism. And you call me a coward. What's to address? You're a new-wave Liberal. Name-calling and political spin are your stock in trade.;)

Wow you are really crying victimhood in this post. Do you not realize that your criticism qualifies as intolerance? You are dishonestly projecting views onto "progressives" to then whine about.

You can't seem to understand that i'm not attacking you, i'm attacking what you said. Perhaps you should read more carefully.
 
No. The purpose of freedom of speech is to insure people are allowed to freely express ideas. It's important for all ideas to be heard as a part of a rational debate to insure we're not missing anything. But hate speech is not an idea. Hate speech is ignorance. Hate speech is the opposite of an idea. People should still be allowed to speak it, but limiting where and when to avoid obvious and intentional harassment is fine by me.

I view it like the Westboro Baptists. If they really want to protest the funeral of a fallen soldier that's fine, but not standing right outside the gate of a funeral. Or another example. In the town I went to college there was an adult book store. There was a right wing nut who would stand right outside the door every single day with a sign shaming people for going into it. The court ruled that he was interfering with a legitimate business that had every right to operate. He was therefore required to move his protest to at least 100 yards of the store front while they were open for business. Another good example is abortion protesters who stand right outside of planned parenthood and other abortion clinics. Desperately trying to shame women for doing something that they have every right to do.

**** bags like Milo Yannopoulos and Ann Coulter do not need to give speeches on left wing college campuses so that we can hear different view points. We already know what they have to say. They do not want to do it to inform anybody. They are nothing but trolls who are intentionally trying to flame others, then claim that the other side are snowflakes for not being able to handle their intentional harassment. In a world where Trump is president, gays, lesbians, Muslims, Atheists, Jews, and women have every reason to fear for their lives. When the republican party can literally beat up a reporter for asking them a question, and still win an election it Conservatives in this country who need to be be better informed. It is liberals who need to be going into conservative strong holds and giving speeches, not the other way around.
You're articulate and sober in tone, MrWonka, but not very libertarian in your Libertarianism. I suspect that's where the Left part manifests itself.
"Hate speech" is an idea, an idea that pervades Leftist discourse. And it's a bad idea. Morepver, speech is speech, and your posts eloquent opening is betrayed in due course by your exclusion of Milo and Coulter from the conversation. And your bona fides as a Lefty is confirmed by this piece of hysterical hyperbole: "In a world where Trump is president, gays, lesbians, Muslims, Atheists, Jews, and women have every reason to fear for their lives." Your second paragraph is reasonable and liberal in the right degree, however. ;)
 
Wow you are really crying victimhood in this post. Do you not realize that your criticism qualifies as intolerance? You are dishonestly projecting views onto "progressives" to then whine about.

You can't seem to understand that i'm not attacking you, i'm attacking what you said. Perhaps you should read more carefully.
I'm neither whining nor crying victimhood, my friend. I'm criticizing your post, and through it your Liberalism. I don't feel under attack at all. That's more new-wave Liberal spin. Criticism only qualifies as intolerance in Liberal spin-mode. But I'm still willing to discuss freedom of expression if you are. ;)
 
I'm neither whining nor crying victimhood, my friend. I'm criticizing your post, and through it your Liberalism. I don't feel under attack at all. That's more new-wave Liberal spin. Criticism only qualifies as intolerance in Liberal spin-mode. But I'm still willing to discuss freedom of expression if you are. ;)

You weren't simply criticizing. You didn't identify any progressive idea. You identified freedom of speech and then cowardly tried to use it as a bludgeon to beat progressives with. You tried to use it as an excuse to be intolerant of progressives.

That's why your attack was phenomenally ****ty and predicated my unusual guffaw.
 
You weren't simply criticizing. You didn't identify any progressive idea. You identified freedom of speech and then cowardly tried to use it as a bludgeon to beat progressives with. You tried to use it as an excuse to be intolerant of progressives.

That's why your attack was phenomenally ****ty and predicated my unusual guffaw.
You're still doing the same thing, man. It's like you can't help it. Do you want to talk about the OP topic or just take potshots at me?
 
I find it interesting that this thread has evolved into a perfect example of what is wrong with attacks on the first amendment today.

People use the argument of "your expression hurts my feelings, therefore you're intolerant and must be silenced. It's my right to silence you, but you must allow me to do and say as I please". And the hypocrisy/insanity of this goes unnoticed by many. Then if you speak out against it, you're somehow framed as part of the problem. It's kind of like this:

iu-4.jpg

It's this kind of thing, among others, that I try to address on my blog, https://www.meaningoffreedom.com. I wrote about a speaker being violently banished from a college campus a few months ago: https://www.meaningoffreedom.com/20...-editor-heralds-the-end-of-freedom-of-speech/

We're being divided & conquered, it's so obvious. There are far more dire issues that affect all of us. We must stop bickering and unite in order to salvage what we can of our future.
 
**** me. It's 2:10 am. I spent the past 25 minutes dozing in and out while trying to hen peck a reply on my phone at the start of my memorial day vacation, only to accidently hit a button that reset the screen and deleted the entire post.

FML
One of the most rage inducing things which can happen to me while on the Internet. Something similar happened to me Saturday night, except it was a power flash. Luckily I had only typed a couple of words.

Anyone acting like just one side tries to encroach on free speech is fooling oneself.
100% agree.

And political correctness is not inherently freedom of speech. Political correctness is just an idea, a notion or method of speaking. As a notion, it can be used in ways that are in line with free speech and in ways that hamper it. It is only by definition free speech in the sense that basicaly all types of speech, by definition, is capable of being free speech.
Unless political correctness is supplemented with physical force/violence, it is free speech.

If you want to call a black person a racist name, and call it freedom of speech, I can also call you a racist and demand no one buys your products, under the same umbrella of freedom of speech.

"Political correctness" has no inherent power...the power comes from the number of people who believe it is not okay to act like a jerk to someone based on their demographic.

If you are arguing and advocating that a person should be ostracized by society for being politically incorrect unless they remain quiet or cease saying such things, you are using your free speech to attempt to silence their free speech, but doing so in a constitional manner. You are still arguing against the essential basis of the right to free speech by striving to create a situation where the individual is forced to silence themselves or be significantly harmed for it, but not arguing for a violation of the first amendment which protects individuals from the GOVERNMENT violating this right.

If you are arguing and advocating to enshrined into law or regulation some form of political correctness, then you are using your free speech to try and restrict another's through an arguably unconstitutional means.
Take the Constitution out of it for a second, as it tends to muddy these waters. I think we both would generally agree on the concept of freedom of speech under the law.

If you think it is okay to call Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" and I think you're an awful person for doing so (and, to note, I have no feelings either way about it), I have every bit the freedom of speech to call on others to ostracize you from society. That is freedom of speech and if enough people agree with me, then you will be ostracized. You seem to be claiming (and I could be mistaken) our removing you from society suppresses your free speech, but it doesn't. Having freedom of speech doesn't mean you have freedom from consequences of that speech and if the consequences of your speech is my (and others like me) speech, then that's a you problem. But it doesn't mean you didn't have the freedom to call Warren Pocahontas.

But that's not what so many people want. They want to be free to say anything they want, but not have to face the consequences for their speech. Person A wants the freedom to say what they want and like to hear, but don't want others to have the freedom to say what Person A doesn't like or want to hear. And that's been my point in this thread.

So i.e.

John Doe calls women on his local radio show "chicks" continually.

*read, but removed for post count*

The third, I would begin to have an issue.
The third is also where I'd have a problem, but that's only because it gets into government legislating which speech is protected. The government should only do so when legislating the speech protects individuals (the popular "yelling fire in a theater" example comes to mind).

I mean even here. You are complaing about matchlight complaining about some liberals complaining some conservatives complaining about some other random thing.
I'm not actually complaining about matchlight, I was just using his post as an example.

**** why did I keep typing so much. God damn. Go to sleep you idiot (Me, me is the idiot I'm referring to).

Also you can't look at the camera on an album cover butters!
Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, why don't we just shut off the light.
 
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.

Why are a bunch of Republican legislators in several states trying to stifle free speech rights?
 
Agreed. We have too many people in this country that believe if they dislike what someone is saying, they should shout them down, block their path, and threaten violence to get them to shut up or go away. How is that freedom?

Jackasses have always existed. None of this is new. None of it is unique.
 
I don't trust Noam Chomsky's judgment at all given how wrong he was on Cambodia, so......:neutral:

"I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury." - Chomsky


??
 
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.

What specific laws are you referring to?
 
Thats good, because from what I've seen...it's mostly the far-rightwing that is committing most of the cyber bullying.

:lamo
 
What specific laws are you referring to?
Most of harassment law in the workplace, and the hopelessly muddled consent component of rape laws.
In cases where a job is denied or lost or a promotion is denied involving extortionate sexual harassment, the law makes good sense. Where the law tries to cover social interaction in the workplace, it oversteps.

Sexual Harassment

It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.

Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

Facts About Sexual Harassment
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-sex.cfm

Definition of Rape

The crime of rape generally refers to non-consensual sexual intercourse that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress.

Common law defined rape as unlawful intercourse by a man against a woman who is not his wife by force or threat and against her will. However most states have refined and broadened the statutory definition of rape so that marriage, gender, and force are not relevant. The victim's lack of consent is the crucial element. A lack of consent can include the victim's inability to say "no" to intercourse, due to the effects of drugs or alcohol. Rape can occur when the offender and victim have a pre-existing relationship (sometimes called "date rape"), or even when the offender is the victim's spouse.

To convict an offender for rape, some form of sexual penetration, however slight, must occur. Each instance of penetration can serve as a count of rape, as well.

The most common form of rape is forcible rape, in which an offender uses violence or threats of violence to force a victim into sexual intercourse. In most states, however, rape can also occur in a number of other ways, including posing as a public official and threatening to arrest or punish the victim.
Rape - FindLaw

Laws regarding rape
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_rape
 
They are trying to limit protest which is a fundamental right that one will only find in free nations. I swear they are becoming more and more authoritarian.
Suppress protest? Doesn't sound Constitutional.
 
Most of harassment law in the workplace, and the hopelessly muddled consent component of rape laws.
In cases where a job is denied or lost or a promotion is denied involving extortionate sexual harassment, the law makes good sense. Where the law tries to cover social interaction in the workplace, it oversteps.

So if a boss patted an employee on the butt, you think the law should not protect against such social interactions?
 
Back
Top Bottom