• 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
No rights are absolute.

I know that and you know that, tell that to some of the wacky libertarians who thinks rights are. :roll:
 
Free speech is free speech; people are also free not to agree, free to withhold their money from someone for same, etc.


You can say pretty much anything you wish, but that doesn't mean you're exempt from a backlash from other free people doing what they are free to do.
 
I know that and you know that, tell that to some of the wacky libertarians who thinks rights are. :roll:
I wonder if they know that the first amendment applies only to congress with a few exceptions?
 
I support the freedom of speech as long as it doesnt harm the other's rights of freedom of speech.
 
Oh and thanks.... I love to vote Rootebega. Pity it isn't a choice in Prez elections....
 
Show the post: I remember saying that there was a convoluted statement made, but I don't where it is actually.

Nope. It is just a few pages back if that. You can look it up or I will just chalk it up to you being wrong.
 
Nope. It is just a few pages back if that. You can look it up or I will just chalk it up to you being wrong.

Right: post # 43; CPWILL

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.

His response has nothing to do with above poster’s comment. Universities should disassociate? Lunatic professors? Little eichman’s?? Nowhere in the thread up to that point is any such mention of anything the poster alludes to made! It’s a cryptic and convoluted statement that says nothing actually, which is why I followed up by saying it was convoluted, and CPWILL obviously had no answer; and neither do you.
 
Right: post # 43; CPWILL



His response has nothing to do with above poster’s comment. Universities should disassociate? Lunatic professors? Little eichman’s?? Nowhere in the thread up to that point is any such mention of anything the poster alludes to made! It’s a cryptic and convoluted statement that says nothing actually, which is why I followed up by saying it was convoluted, and CPWILL obviously had no answer; and neither do you.

Dude, I already addressed this and you insulted my reading comprehension. It is obvious you don't get it.

Originally Posted by megaprogman
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.)

Originally Posted by cpwill
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.
 
Last edited:
Dude, I already addressed this and you insulted my reading comprehension. It is obvious you don't get it.

Dude: the guy made a convoluted statement. His statement says nothing about free speech. He leaves no clue to what he's trying to say.

So, you think what you want to think, and I'll think what I want to think.

Howzat?
 
Isn't quote "shouting down" someone else's point of view simply free speech of another form? May the best man win :shrug:

I agree with this, but it has to be allowable on all sides. I sure remember some people taking issue with constituents "shouting down" local politicians at town hall meetings during the health care debate.

On the OP, boycotts are fine, but again, it cuts all ways. Other people's boycott list my just be my list of preferred businesses (I'm thinking of the boycott against Arizona businesses during the immigration law debate). On the Rush thing, the businesses that pulled their advertising actually suffered some backlash and, I'm guessing we'd all agree, that that's perfectly fine too.
 
I agree with this, but it has to be allowable on all sides. I sure remember some people taking issue with constituents "shouting down" local politicians at town hall meetings during the health care debate.

On the OP, boycotts are fine, but again, it cuts all ways. Other people's boycott list my just be my list of preferred businesses (I'm thinking of the boycott against Arizona businesses during the immigration law debate). On the Rush thing, the businesses that pulled their advertising actually suffered some backlash and, I'm guessing we'd all agree, that that's perfectly fine too.

I would say that's more a matter of decorum and civility than law. I am in favor of 1st Amendment rights. I'm not against folks shouting down other folks at town hall meetings, legally speaking. I just think it's rude.
 
Last edited:
Dude: the guy made a convoluted statement. His statement says nothing about free speech. He leaves no clue to what he's trying to say.

So, you think what you want to think, and I'll think what I want to think.

Howzat?

Wrong. He does. Mega talks about the 1st Amendment being harmed and Will answers that it is not harmed. The 1st is about Freedom of Speech.

End of story...

Go ahead and think what you want though.
 
Back
Top Bottom