• 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

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,909
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
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.
So what you're saying is speech you agree with is okay, but speech you disagree with isn't?
 
So what you're saying is speech you agree with is okay, but speech you disagree with isn't?
No, I'm saying ALL speech is okay, unless treasonous, libelous, slanderous, or physically harmful. ;)
 
It's more like people not wanting to hear the truth about themselves.
 
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?
 
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.

I agree with you that hate speech should be protected speech.
 
There is free speech and then there is consequences of said free speech.

I believe very much in free speech.

However I also believe that there should be consequences if words uttered under free speech incites to violence or criminality.

Case in point.. Mob boss says to hitman 1.. Go kill mr Zulu and hitman 1 does so. Now, is that free speech? yes it is.. but should the mob boss not face sanctions for the actions that said free speech did? Of course.

Now the question is... when is it criminal? Is it only criminal after the hitman commits the murder, or can you bust the mob boss for saying what he did, before it happens and hence save a life?

So take this to the world we have today..

Political agitator advocates publicly that there should be "a final solution to the Muslims problem", clearly wanting a Muslim holocaust. It is in her right to say that, according to free speech, but she is also advocating something clearly criminal and violent. Should we only go after her, if someone starts killing Muslims and can be linked to her comments, or should we go after her before that happens and set an example on how to behave in a civilised world?

In my opinion you cant go after the mob boss and not go after the political agitator..

The real tricky part is when the political agitator hides behind religious cloths...
 
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.

I don't trust Noam Chomsky's judgment at all given how wrong he was on Cambodia, so......:neutral:
 
I don't trust Noam Chomsky's judgment at all given how wrong he was on Cambodia, so......:neutral:

His quote is definitely right on the $, though. Freedom of speech means protecting speech that you (general you) don't necessarily like.
 
So what you're saying is speech you agree with is okay, but speech you disagree with isn't?

From my reading of his post, it doesn't seem like that is anywhere near an accurate representation of his thought process. Actually, it looks incredibly dishonest. Looking at the vast majority of what he wrote, it would seem what he's saying is:

"If the speech, due to clear intent or undue recklessness, causes verifiably tangible harm to another individual it is not okay. Otherwise, it is. This is regardless of whether or not I agree with the point that is being made."

The metric for determining if he thinks speech is "okay" or not seems to have zero to do with agreeing with the content of the speech, but rather the impact that speech has on others. Literally nothing in his post suggests his determination is centered around whether or not he agrees with what's being stated.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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:
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
I am concerned about the societal/legal drift represented by the point of view expressed below. Aren't you?

Circumventing the "True Threat" Standard in Campus Hate Speech Codes
by Craig R. Smith
California State University, Long Beach

*Craig R. Smith is Professor of Communication Studies and Director of the Center for First Amendment Studies at California State University, Long Beach. See his newest book, The Four Freedoms of the First Amendment (Waveland Press, 2004).

Abstract
With a series of decisions striking down speech codes on campuses, the Supreme Court has made dealing with hate speech very difficult. Speech must present a "true threat" in order to be regulated. On the other hand, the Court has been more permissive when it comes to regulations regarding sexual harassment. This study proposes using the Court's model of sexual harassment for hate speech in work and learning environments to circumvent the "true threat" standard.
The Center For First Amendment Studies CSULB | White Papers
 
I don't trust Noam Chomsky's judgment at all given how wrong he was on Cambodia, so......:neutral:

You do not have to trust his judgement to agree with something he said.
 
No, I'm saying ALL speech is okay, unless treasonous, libelous, slanderous, or physically harmful. ;)
Then why:

A) Bother posting the thread
B) say this: "the upshot of Progressive distortion and must be exposed for the political rubbish it is".

Mostly B though. Why say the end if all you're trying to say is all speech is okay?
From my reading of his post, it doesn't seem like that is anywhere near an accurate representation of his thought process. Actually, it looks incredibly dishonest.
Then you must have missed the end of his post where he said, "the upshot of Progressive distortion and must be exposed for the political rubbish it is."

I could be mistaken, but it looks like yet another conservative/Republican whining about either political correctness or protests which cause universities (or other entities) to cancel speeches by conservative speakers (or similar circumstances), as is fairly common around these parts.

Again, I could be wrong, but there are just a couple of code words which are highly suggestive. Otherwise...what's the point in posting this thread and specifically that portion of it?

The metric for determining if he thinks speech is "okay" or not seems to have zero to do with agreeing with the content of the speech, but rather the impact that speech has on others. Literally nothing in his post suggests his determination is centered around whether or not he agrees with what's being stated.
Yeah...no...

Unless you can somehow explain how the second part of his post doesn't exist in the way it appears it does, I'm going to pass on this explanation. So if you can explain how "Progressive distortion...exposed for the political rubbish it is" applies to his first statement without falling into the all too common refrain mentioned earlier, I'll be happy to amend my comment. But I suspect you will, as you clearly did in this post (since we're apparently speaking of posting dishonesty), once again ignore the second half of the post, which seems to provide not just the context but also the motivation to the thread.


Oh, and before you reply, do so with the understanding that if students at a university protest at a university so strongly the university chooses to no longer allow a certain speaker to speak, then that IS the freedom of expression as well. But, somehow, I have the feeling that second form of expression by the students isn't being given quite the same passion of freedom by the OP. Again, I could be mistaken, but it comes back to those certain code words mentioned before which make me think I'm not.
 
Last edited:
Then why:

A) Bother posting the thread
B) say this: "the upshot of Progressive distortion and must be exposed for the political rubbish it is".

Mostly B though. Why say the end if all you're trying to say is all speech is okay?

Did you not read post#21, just one post before your post on this page? B justifies A, as I see the matter.

I am concerned about the societal/legal drift represented by the point of view expressed below. Aren't you?
 
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.

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.


"....The regulation won unanimous approval in the Legislature and makes it a crime to post information online that can identify someone, including their name, photo and place of employment, in order to "intimidate, abuse, threaten, harass, frighten, or disrupt the electronic communications of another."

It is part of a larger measure passed during the recently completed legislative session, meant to stamp out cybercrime.

Similar laws in New York and North Carolina have been ruled unconstitutional in recent years, said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who called Utah's measure a violation of the First Amendment..."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...rassment-may-be-unconstitutional?int=news-rec


Laws like this get passed because a few bad apples abuse their rights and spoil it for the whole bunch...imo.



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.
Rubbish ^^^
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom