• 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!

8-0 SCOTUS Free Speech Win

calamity said:
Morality has nothing to do with US Law. Remember, "evidence of innocence by itself is no reason to overturn a perfectly good conviction." (Paraphrased)
Click to expand...

Correct, i'm not appealing to the law which protects hate speech, but to morality which does not.
 
maquiscat said:
We start with the fact that whether it is disparaging or not is a subjective value. Then we note that most Native Americans do not feel that the Washington team using the name Redskins is disparaging. Regardless of the group there will always be some that find something disparaging about something. If a vast majority of said group find it to be so then we should, as society, seek not to use what is seen as disparaging. On the flip side, if only a minority of said group, are discontent, then they should not expect for others to bend to their will, especially given that a majority of their fellow group members are fine with it. There is no basic right being violated here, so this isn't comparable to not having the right to vote or other similar issues of the past.
Click to expand...

I dispute "most Native Americans do not feel that the Washington team using the name Redskins is disparaging." But even ignoring that, your answer is that if 49% found it deeply offensive, **** em. So, ignore the history, context, and intent, and the minority.

It's demeaning to a group of people. It mocks their culture, parading an example around like an animal.

Are You Ready For Some Controversy? The History Of 'Redskin' : Code Switch : NPR

Years of studying and observing this situation have led me to an unfortunate conclusion: People have been conditioned to ignore racism directed at Native Americans.
...
When the status of a Native American is demoted to that of a caricature, we are objectified and diminished as a people. We become entertainment, not fellow citizens. How are you supposed to take me seriously if all you see is the stereotypical image of the Hollywood or sports mascot Indian?
Click to expand...

Opinion: Native Americans: We're not your mascots - CNN.com
 
Absentglare said:
A good example would be how the FCC, a government agency, enforces conduct with respect to speech over broadcast media.

I wonder how many people would fall silent on first amendment platitudes once someone wants to broadcast child porn.
Click to expand...

Child pornography is not an expression of free speech. Or any type of speech period. It is an assault on children. Anyone that claims otherwise is stupid at best.
 
Zyphlin said:
Something that can't be taken away doesn't mean it can't be suppressed/infringed upon/violated.

Your right to keep and bear arms is inalienable.

If I disallow you from carrying into my place of business, I am suppressing your use of that right; but I am not stripping you of that right. You can leave my place of business and continue to carry a weapon. You can even IGNORE my request, and still carry a weapon INTO my business. I have in no way "taken away" your right, though I have attempted to infringe upon it.

Similarly, the government is unable to completely take away ones right to free speech, to freedom of religion, to the right to bear arms....but they ARE able to suppress it, to infringe upon it, and they are able to do so with the entire weight of the social contract with it is built upon behind them. Thus the reason why the constitution provides a degree of protection to the citizenry from the government engaging in such a thing.

As with all matters of social contracts, there is give and take regarding how much we the individual are willing to voluntarily allow our inalienable rights to be surpressed via a system of laws in exchange for the benefits and protections that a system of government provides to us. But it is impossible, short of death or something akin to it, for the government, or anyone, to permanently REMOVE your natural rights. IF such a thing is possible, it is a good indication that said "right" is not actually a natural, and thus inalienable, right but rather simply a privilege constructed within the social contract.
Click to expand...

Those on the Left tend not to believe in natural rights.
 
American said:
Those on the Left tend not to believe in natural rights.
Click to expand...

for good reason
if those rights were truly 'natural', innate
then they would be universally exercised
that they are not, tells us there is nothing 'natural' about them
 
justabubba said:
can't agree with this
doesn't matter whether the minority or majority of a group are offended by the use of a name
the first amendment applies to allow its usage. absolutely
for example, on these boards, our resident racists stridently object to being called out as racists. the majority of them acknowledge their being offended by referring to them with that accurate expression. even tho the majority object to that term usage, that does not make them other than racists - entitled to be referred to as racists
Click to expand...
First, as far as the first amendment goes,there is a big difference between controlling speech by law, and doing so by social pressure. It is the latter that I am referring to. As to your example.... Logan's Law #2: There's an exception to every rule, including this one. While what I put out works well as a rule of thumb, it wasn't intended to be universal. But your example also highlights a difference in what is being discussed. You are referencing calling someone a descriptor. If objective, it may be accurate or not, or it may be a subjective value. The thread is about the use of a term, vice calling someone a descriptor. So there is a difference. The use of the term cannot be subjective, but whether or not its use is offensive is. It is in such a case, that we shoul.d look to the group supposedly offended, and see what its population actually says.
 
Absentglare said:
I dispute "most Native Americans do not feel that the Washington team using the name Redskins is disparaging." But even ignoring that, your answer is that if 49% found it deeply offensive, **** em. So, ignore the history, context, and intent, and the minority.

It's demeaning to a group of people. It mocks their culture, parading an example around like an animal.

Are You Ready For Some Controversy? The History Of 'Redskin' : Code Switch : NPR


Opinion: Native Americans: We're not your mascots - CNN.com
Click to expand...

The only ones who get to determine if a term or word use is demeaning is the group itself. So jocks do not get to determine if something is demeaning to nerds or not. Just because they claim it is demeaning, if the nerds don't feel it is, they are the most important in deciding such. The same goes for Native Americans. If us white folks are trying to determine such a subjective value for them, how are we any better in letting them determine things for themselves? Yes there are those who are opposed to it, and I have never denied it, but there are plenty who are supportive of the Was as team, and its name. The emblem was created by a Native American, IIRC.
 
justabubba said:
for good reason
if those rights were truly 'natural', innate
then they would be universally exercised
that they are not, tells us there is nothing 'natural' about them
Click to expand...

That's only because you don't understand the concept. Plus it messes up your whole big government paradigm.
 
maquiscat said:
The only ones who get to determine if a term or word use is demeaning is the group itself. So jocks do not get to determine if something is demeaning to nerds or not. Just because they claim it is demeaning, if the nerds don't feel it is, they are the most important in deciding such. The same goes for Native Americans. If us white folks are trying to determine such a subjective value for them, how are we any better in letting them determine things for themselves? Yes there are those who are opposed to it, and I have never denied it, but there are plenty who are supportive of the Was as team, and its name. The emblem was created by a Native American, IIRC.
Click to expand...

The ignorance or pride of a minority is not a valid reason to demean them.

Basically what you're arguing is that me, as a white man, i'm not allowed to be offended at racism or sexism against other minorities.
 
American said:
That's only because you don't understand the concept. Plus it messes up your whole big government paradigm.
Click to expand...

a 'natural rights' concept you are obviously unable to articulate
your cohort believes a 'natural' right is the right to bear arms
we can see that is universally NOT a 'natural' right
which fact destroys your modicum of an argument
 
Absentglare said:
The ignorance or pride of a minority is not a valid reason to demean them.

Basically what you're arguing is that me, as a white man, i'm not allowed to be offended at racism or sexism against other minorities.
Click to expand...

You have every right to be offended.

But we also have the right to not give a **** about you being offended. Hate speech is legal. It SHOULD be legal. Setting laws against free speech is a BAD thing. You may think you are being all PC and doing a good thing, but all you are really doing is acting like a rainbow colored Hitler. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You set the precedent that "hate speech is bad," but then you may not like it when you get outvoted on what is hate speech. It may become that some of your tear jerking rants get voted as hate speech in a court of law. And you go to jail.

So really. Where are you going with this? You want the redskins to change their name? Ok. They don't want to. Tough titty. Don't support them. Don't support their league that allows them. Free market/speech is the only option. Otherwise you don't have free speech.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Grand Mal said:
I agree. Right to free speech can only be violated by the government. Not private citizens. If I yell at someone expressing a boneheaded opinion, tell them to sit down and shut up, I'm not violating their right, I'm using my own.
Only the government can violate the right to free speech.
Click to expand...



You forgot institutions. There is no greater threat to freedom of expression than on University campuses.
 
justabubba said:
a 'natural rights' concept you are obviously unable to articulate
your cohort believes a 'natural' right is the right to bear arms
we can see that is universally NOT a 'natural' right
which fact destroys your modicum of an argument
Click to expand...

I guess you're smarter than all the founders. I forgot.
 
Absentglare said:
The ignorance or pride of a minority is not a valid reason to demean them.

Basically what you're arguing is that me, as a white man, i'm not allowed to be offended at racism or sexism against other minorities.
Click to expand...

No I am arguing that you, as a white man, do not get to tell a minority whether or not they are offended by something. Simply because you feel it is offensive doesn't mean they do. Most Native Americans are either not bothered by or support the Redskins. Yes there are those who are offended, it you seem to think that they all should be.
 
American said:
I guess you're smarter than all the founders. I forgot.
Click to expand...

hopefully, the founders would be able to put forth a better defense of a 'natural rights' argument than you have presented
 
Perotista said:
I'm all for the ruling also. Government in my opinion shouldn't be in the business of deciding what one can say or not or in this case trademark. Let whomever trademark whatever name or phrase they want. If it offends too many people, that business or band or whatever is bound to go out of business.

Let people decide what offends them or not. Keep government out of it.
Click to expand...

Really. As someone who grew up in the DC area and watched this attempt to make the Redskins name mean something I don't think anyone alive really equates it with...hey, look at the Cleveland Indians logo (lol)! That's insulting!

Seriously, this sort of stuff has gotten totally out of control. I'm glad the robed gods were all sane this time. A rather rare occurrence.
 
maquiscat said:
No I am arguing that you, as a white man, do not get to tell a minority whether or not they are offended by something. Simply because you feel it is offensive doesn't mean they do. Most Native Americans are either not bothered by or support the Redskins. Yes there are those who are offended, it you seem to think that they all should be.
Click to expand...

Whether or not a term is offensive is subjective. Any person may have their own opinion. You are claiming that certain people's opinions are invalid; those of a minority of a minority or those of a majority. I don't think your position is logically tenable.
 
Absentglare said:
Whether or not a term is offensive is subjective. Any person may have their own opinion. You are claiming that certain people's opinions are invalid; those of a minority of a minority or those of a majority. I don't think your position is logically tenable.
Click to expand...

My position is based entirely upon the fact that offensive is subjective. I don't claim that your opinion of whether or not the use of the term "Redskins" is invalid. Only that you cannot claim such for a group, especially when most of that group is either defending the use of the name or doesn't reallly care. Now had more Native American tribes spoken out about the name, you might have something, but most don't have an issue with it, even to the point where a Native American designed the logo.
 
Absentglare said:
A good example would be how the FCC, a government agency, enforces conduct with respect to speech over broadcast media.

I wonder how many people would fall silent on first amendment platitudes once someone wants to broadcast child porn.
Click to expand...

One of the dumbest things I have ever read on Debate Politics. Congratulations.
 
Absentglare said:
Please explain to me how deeply offending even 1 in 10 Native Americans is acceptable.

Some of them probably don't care because they've got bigger problems than the props paraded around as mascots at homoerotic sporting events; problems like alcoholism and depression. After exterminating, conquering, and corralling them into "reservations", continually reneging our own signed agreements in the process, perhaps they feel that this cultural mockery is relatively insignificant.

But this just brings me back to my earlier statement. If you were using the word ni**er, but it was only heard by 1 in 10 black people who it offended, would that be acceptable to you?
Click to expand...

If 9 out of 10 Native Americans were offended it still wouldn't be reasonable to bow to Progressive's childlike demands.
 
maquiscat said:
My position is based entirely upon the fact that offensive is subjective. I don't claim that your opinion of whether or not the use of the term "Redskins" is invalid. Only that you cannot claim such for a group, especially when most of that group is either defending the use of the name or doesn't reallly care. Now had more Native American tribes spoken out about the name, you might have something, but most don't have an issue with it, even to the point where a Native American designed the logo.
Click to expand...

Plenty of Native American tribes have spoken out against it, you're just choosing to ignore all that and relying on phone polls that ask "Are you Native American?" Which don't reach Native Americans well (they don't have lots of landlines in reservations) and do get responses from white people who were told that they have Native American ancestry.

I notice you never cited any polls for your claim that a majority of Native Americans find the term inoffensive. Furthermore, there are any number of reasons why Native Americans might not say they care, pride or depression, for example, but that do not legitimately disprove the notion that the term is offensive. Maybe you can't put two and two together in that the rampant depression and alcoholism among Native Americans might have something to do with the fact that they've been horribly oppressed by the US government.
 
ajn678 said:
One of the dumbest things I have ever read on Debate Politics. Congratulations.
Click to expand...

Feel free to recognize that there are justifiable reasons to limit free speech and freedom of expression.

Or you can act like free speech is absolute which was already reductio'ed.

ajn678 said:
If 9 out of 10 Native Americans were offended it still wouldn't be reasonable to bow to Progressive's childlike demands.
Click to expand...

I recognize that you are more defined in terms of anti-progressive than you are standing on your own two feet. I think it's sad that an entire culture shapes itself out of spite.
 
justabubba said:
hopefully, the founders would be able to put forth a better defense of a 'natural rights' argument than you have presented
Click to expand...

They did, why don't you read up on it? Waste of time since you probably won't get it.
 
American said:
They did, why don't you read up on it? Waste of time since you probably won't get it.
Click to expand...

i cannot 'get' what you have yet to even attempt to articulate
let's see your presentation explaining the legitimacy of 'natural rights'
 
ludin said:
"We now hold that this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment," Alito wrote. "It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend."

THis right here is why alito is a rock star of a judge.

maybe someone should start telling out colleges and state law makers this.
Click to expand...


Alito got a simple opinion to write due to all justices being in agreement. No dissenting opinion(s) to counter, no concurring opinions to finesse.

A pre-law student could write the opinion and seem profound.

Scotus has never struck down the FCC prohibitions on certain words being used on the air to include via cable. Most of the prohibited words refer to sex acts -- sucker or lapper sort of words. Five will get you ten you could not get a business license to open a restaurant that uses one of the FCC six prohibited words. It might be due to a legal overlap.

Alito would be tongue tied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom