• 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!

Freedom of speech

Free speech question


  • Total voters
    27
d

How can PC be agreed if many people ( like myself) don't agree on or believe in PC BS.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

Because it is still a dominant social convention as few people wish to bear the stigma of using words or phrases deemed bad by our culture, even if they personally disagree. Its the same as people disliking others using words like **** or ****. Many people use it quite frequency in their personal lives or peer groups, but tend to shy away from saying it to general audiences.
 
Free speech means to some they can abuse you and call you names if you disagree with them..
 
Yes, but political correctness refers more to social convention than 1st Amendment rights than legal limits on free speech.

Political Correctness to some has morphed into this lalaland belief that they can abuse anyone for disagreeing with them with impunity...
 
Political Correctness to some has morphed into this lalaland belief that they can abuse anyone for disagreeing with them with impunity...

Any social convention will have a social enforcement component. Otherwise it would never have become a convention in the first place. This is one of the informal ways that humans regulate their social landscape.

At its core, its no different than picking the fat kid last to play kickball.
 
Last edited:
Because it is still a dominant social convention as few people wish to bear the stigma of using words or phrases deemed bad by our culture, even if they personally disagree. Its the same as people disliking others using words like **** or ****. Many people use it quite frequency in their personal lives or peer groups, but tend to shy away from saying it to general audiences.

I never get offended by someones speech or beliefs until they bring it to me on a personal level....Im for this...Your not...does that mean we call each other names and degrade each other all day long in the HOPES that one side will gave in and say OK OK UNCLE im for whatever you want me to be for..
lol...what planet did they come from lol
 
I never get offended by someones speech or beliefs until they bring it to me on a personal level....Im for this...Your not...does that mean we call each other names and degrade each other all day long in the HOPES that one side will gave in and say OK OK UNCLE im for whatever you want me to be for..
lol...what planet did they come from lol

Personally, I like it when people have a thick skin. So many of today's social ills would be far better if people simply ignored them and the idiots did not get the attention they crave.
 
No. In fact using the action of a boycott is using your first amendment..
 
Free speech means to some they can abuse you and call you names if you disagree with them..
Yep, that's covered in free speech. What's your point?
 
Media personalities have come to believe that they say anything that they want without consequence. They have the power to smear and degrade anybody who they disagree with for any reason. It could be a person's politics, religion, etc... or could be that they just don't like the way a person looks or acts. Those who are on the bunt end of that have virtually no rebuttle power.

Media personalities clearly know that they can easily get away with making opinions sound as though they are facts...and if they are caught and called on their ploys to do so....they simply scream...YOU IDIOT, you should check out my comments and believe what you want to believe.

Well, the damage is done and media personalities know that.

If I walk up to you and call you a son-of-a-bitch low life and then smile and nonchalantly say: "I was just kidding." That person still got to say what was on his or her mind and let little recourse to call them on it because they "CLAIM" they were kidding.

Radio and TV pundits know how to be dishonest and for the most part get away with it. And they leave plenty of victims laid out in the wreckage of the media person's comments.
 
Last edited:
Media personalities have come to believe that they say anything that they want without consequence.

I think they just do it for the free publicity. Rush Limbaugh hasn't been in the news in about a month, so keep your ears peeled. He'll doubtless say something vaguely racist and then claim it wasn't. Something easily construed as racist by anybody not hellbent on defending him on any account.

To answer the question, the First Amendment only refers to actions of the government, not private citizens. So a boycott by private citizens does not harm anyone's First Amendment rights.
 
Media personalities have come to believe that they say anything that they want without consequence. They have the power to smear and degrade anybody who they disagree with for any reason. It could be a person's politics, religion, etc... or could be that they just don't like the way a person looks or acts. Those who are on the bunt end of that have virtually no rebuttle power.

Media personalities clearly know that they can easily get away with making opinions sound as though they are facts...and if they are caught and called on their ploys to do so....they simply scream...YOU IDIOT, you should check out my comments and believe what you want to believe.

Well, the damage is done and media personalities know that.

If I walk up to you and call you a son-of-a-bitch low life and then smile and nonchalantly say: "I was just kidding." That person still got to say what was on his or her mind and let little recourse to call them on it because they "CLAIM" they were kidding.

Radio and TV pundits know how to be dishonest and for the most part get away with it. And they leave plenty of victims laid out in the wreckage of the media person's comments.

You're right, and of course this all shock jock stuff all over again.
 
Boycotts only work to make people responsible for their speech/actions. You absolutely have the right to free speech.....what you don't have is the right to live free of its repercussions
 
Personally, I like it when people have a thick skin. So many of today's social ills would be far better if people simply ignored them and the idiots did not get the attention they crave.

Yeah well thats difficult on forums...in real its easy...having a thick skin only goes so far...its the indian rope burn syndrome...you can only take so m uch now matter how thickskinned you are
 
Boycotts only work to make people responsible for their speech/actions. You absolutely have the right to free speech.....what you don't have is the right to live free of its repercussions

Very well said...
 
Boycotts only work to make people responsible for their speech/actions. You absolutely have the right to free speech.....what you don't have is the right to live free of its repercussions

Except repercussions from the government.
 
Nope, that's pure BS. Boycotts have jack to do with the 1st Amendment.

Also, I do not consider political donations to be speech, and view the disclosure of campaign donations and finances to simply be a matter of transparency.

Exactly my position 100%
 
Starting with the Rush Limbaugh thing and also continuing with some of the comments I see about the idea of disclosure of political donations. There seems to be an idea that speech is not free if people react negatively to what someone says.

For example, there was a claim made by some that Rush Limbaugh was losing his free speech rights because people boycotted his advertisers and there seems to be similar fears about disclosure of PAC or campaign contributions.

So my question is this, is the first amendment harmed if the citizenry refuses to associate with or purchase from someone because they dislike their speech? Similarly, is this impugned if people threaten to do the same if someone decides to make such a statement in the future? (example, don't talk bad about puppies or I will never buy from your store again and I will write a letter to your job's complaint department.)

absolutely not. that is why, for example, universities should have the right to disassociate themselves from lunatic professors who go off spouting on little eichmans' and the like.
 
absolutely not. that is why, for example, universities should have the right to disassociate themselves from lunatic professors who go off spouting on little eichmans' and the like.

Your answer is convoluted.
 
Your answer is convoluted.

not at all. freedom of speech includes freedom of association, which presumes as well freedom of disassociation.
 
not at all. freedom of speech includes freedom of association, which presumes as well freedom of disassociation.

What professors do you have in mind? Your reply was out of context and therefore convoluted.
 
What professors do you have in mind? Your reply was out of context and therefore convoluted.

It isn't convoluted in the slightest...
 
Show that.

Show that it wasn't convoluted? Are you serious? :roll:

Why don't you... the one that thinks it is convoluted, explain why instead. Thanks.
 
Show that it wasn't convoluted? Are you serious? :roll:

Why don't you... the one that thinks it is convoluted, explain why instead. Thanks.

I am serious; show that his answer wasn't convoluted: ga'head
 
Back
Top Bottom