• 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
Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,962
Reaction score
58,544
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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.)
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
No, it's not harmed. Some people conflate "freedom of speech" with "freedom from criticism" and "freedom from consequences." That's all that the arguments you describe in your OP are.
 
megaprogman said:
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.)
Click to expand...
I answered no. You have the right to free speech.You do not have the right of freedom from criticism over something you said,freedom from being fired over something you said about your boss or boycotted over something your said.

That said it does make you a hypocrite when you claim to support free speech and you try to silence opposing views.Boycots can be used as a means to try to silence views you don't like.Shouting down can be used as a means of silencing views you don't like.Rioting can also be used as a means to silence views you don't like.
 
Of course not, it's silly to claim otherwise.
 
jamesrage said:
I answered no. You have the right to free speech.You do not have the right of freedom from criticism over something you said,freedom from being fired over something you said about your boss or boycotted over something your said.

That said it does make you a hypocrite when you claim to support free speech and you try to silence opposing views.Boycots can be used as a means to try to silence views you don't like.Shouting down can be used as a means of silencing views you don't like.Rioting can also be used as a means to silence views you don't like.
Click to expand...

Isn't quote "shouting down" someone else's point of view simply free speech of another form? May the best man win :shrug:
 
StillBallin75 said:
Isn't quote "shouting down" someone else's point of view simply free speech of another form? May the best man win :shrug:
Click to expand...

That is pretty much how I see it. There is no rule about free speech that says that someone must respect the speech of another. As long as nobody is busting down someone's door and putting a gun at their head, it is perfectly legal and ethical to promote what one sees as trying to steer society for the better. If that means getting a bigger bull horn, advocating for or against something, boycotting something one sees as harmful, or whatever, its fine and probably our duty as a citizen to promote the best society possible.

I don't see why this could be seen as hypocritical. For right or wrong, there are people who honestly believe that what Rush says is harmful, just like there are those who think that what Al Sharpton says is harmful. While personally, I don't think either are that harmful, it is well within morality for someone to try and quell harmful things as a form of associating with one's community.

We try to quell racist speech (not that I am trying to equate rush or al with racism, but this is a valid example) and that is seen as valid, even though it is still speech. We recognize as a society, that such speech creates an atmosphere for harms to occur. Some feel this way about conservatism, liberalism, or whatever point of view.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
That is pretty much how I see it. There is no rule about free speech that says that someone must respect the speech of another. As long as nobody is busting down someone's door and putting a gun at their head, it is perfectly legal and ethical to promote what one sees as trying to steer society for the better. If that means getting a bigger bull horn, advocating for or against something, boycotting something one sees as harmful, or whatever, its fine and probably our duty as a citizen to promote the best society possible.

I don't see why this could be seen as hypocritical. For right or wrong, there are people who honestly believe that what Rush says is harmful, just like there are those who think that what Al Sharpton says is harmful. While personally, I don't think either are that harmful, it is well within morality for someone to try and quell harmful things as a form of associating with one's community.

We try to quell racist speech (not that I am trying to equate rush or al with racism, but this is a valid example) and that is seen as valid, even though it is still speech. We recognize as a society, that such speech creates an atmosphere for harms to occur. Some feel this way about conservatism, liberalism, or whatever point of view.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't see it as hypocritical at all. Racist or bigoted speech I am against and I will challenge it whenever and wherever I encounter it. That doesn't mean that I support the LEGAL limitation or infringement of someone else's 1st Amendment rights, unless that speech is immediately harmful (the yelling fire in a crowded theater scenario or incitements to violence).
 
Last edited:
One question people should ask themselves. "If I see people boycotting Rush's advertisers as illegitimate, how would I see about someone boycotting the advertisers of a KKK radio show or a radio show that encourages people towards a fundamentalist view of Islam?"

Everyone has, in their minds, a category of speech that they see as harmful and detrimental to one's fellow man even if that speech is perfectly legal, they would still turn their back on it and choose not to associate with others who support it.
 
Last edited:
The speech is free. It's guaranteed.

The ramifications of said speech become the personal problem of the speaker. Be willing to stand behind what you say before you speak. It's required of you by your peers.
 
megaprogman said:
One question people should ask themselves. "If I see people boycotting Rush's advertisers as illegitimate, how would I see about someone boycotting the advertisers of a KKK radio show or a radio show that encourages people towards a fundamentalist view of Islam?"

Everyone has, in their minds, a category of speech that they see as harmful and detrimental to one's fellow man even if that speech is perfectly legal, they would still turn their back on it and choose not to associate with others who support it.
Click to expand...
This is the crux of the problem. Many people are either unable or unwilling to understand why others would see their beliefs and actions as harmful. Those same people are often either unable or unwilling to understand why others would see beliefs and actions that they view harmful as positive.

It's hypocrisy, but usually hypocrisy that the hypocrites are too self-aggrandizing to recognize.
 
"Boycotting" is a part of the 1st amendment. As much a part of it as Rush Limbaugh's statements, The Dixie Chick's statements, Ted Nugent's statements, and even Debate politics website here! People forget that the protections afforded in the 1st amendment are from the government. The people are plenty free to speak against you for your stupid statements.
 
Phoenix said:
"Boycotting" is a part of the 1st amendment. As much a part of it as Rush Limbaugh's statements, The Dixie Chick's statements, Ted Nugent's statements, and even Debate politics website here! People forget that the protections afforded in the 1st amendment are from the government. The people are plenty free to speak against you for your stupid statements.
Click to expand...

QFT. Essentially what i just said.

12345
 
Phoenix said:
"Boycotting" is a part of the 1st amendment. As much a part of it as Rush Limbaugh's statements, The Dixie Chick's statements, Ted Nugent's statements, and even Debate politics website here! People forget that the protections afforded in the 1st amendment are from the government. The people are plenty free to speak against you for your stupid statements.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to say, you're wrong on one point. The 1st Amendment is not afforded "from the government". The Amendments and the Constitution were meant and are "limitations of government". The government didn't give me or any other citizen of this country living or dead, anything that they didn't already have... it DID however limit government from taking action against it's citizens and does not allow the government to take actions of speech which it doesn't agree with... hence, the freedom of speech.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Isn't quote "shouting down" someone else's point of view simply free speech of another form? May the best man win :shrug:
Click to expand...

It depends on how you do it. The image of two people shouting and everyone choosing who they want to listen to is fine. But the reality is often that one voice has much greater ability to get its message out. For example, all of the political ads and marketing that virtually guarantee that a third party candidate won't have a good shot at an election. The loudest voices in politics are often just the wealthiest. But that concern is really just for big, national issues. That same kind of decoupling of money from speech doesn't really come in a local issue. In local issues, the stakes are low enough that the big money stays home. But when we're crafting a federal energy policy, then the money comes out and buys the airtime, funds elections, and controls the outcome to their tastes.

But you're right, SB, no one gets to voice their opinions in a vacuum. Someone else disagreeing with you does not limit your speech. Speech isn't a race to see who talks first. The reply is just as free as the original speaker.
 
Paschendale said:
It depends on how you do it. The image of two people shouting and everyone choosing who they want to listen to is fine. But the reality is often that one voice has much greater ability to get its message out. For example, all of the political ads and marketing that virtually guarantee that a third party candidate won't have a good shot at an election. The loudest voices in politics are often just the wealthiest. But that concern is really just for big, national issues. That same kind of decoupling of money from speech doesn't really come in a local issue. In local issues, the stakes are low enough that the big money stays home. But when we're crafting a federal energy policy, then the money comes out and buys the airtime, funds elections, and controls the outcome to their tastes.

But you're right, SB, no one gets to voice their opinions in a vacuum. Someone else disagreeing with you does not limit your speech. Speech isn't a race to see who talks first. The reply is just as free as the original speaker.
Click to expand...

All decent points.
 
Free speech is a two-way road.

You have the right to speak your mind, and other people have the right to disassociate from you. That's one good part of America imo.

However, political correctness is one thing that hampers free speech.
 
Wake said:
Free speech is a two-way road.

You have the right to speak your mind, and other people have the right to disassociate from you. That's one good part of America imo.

However, political correctness is one thing that hampers free speech.
Click to expand...

Political correctness is an agreed on use of language and is the byproduct of people having to live with each other and preferring not to be at each other's throats all the time.
 
megaprogman said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech means the government won't do anything (though with the FCC these days...well there's not a lot of broadcast free speech left). Individuals are under no obligation to support your product if you say something they don't like. In fact, the proper servo in the system is not to use government force and forms of thought police, but rather let consumers actively servo the system.
 
You are free to speak your mind without the government interfearing. Your not,free from on how,other people will react to your,words.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2
 
Wake said:
Free speech is a two-way road.

You have the right to speak your mind, and other people have the right to disassociate from you. That's one good part of America imo.

However, political correctness is one thing that hampers free speech.
Click to expand...

Yes, but political correctness refers more to social convention than 1st Amendment rights than legal limits on free speech.
 
megaprogman said:
Political correctness is an agreed on use of language and is the byproduct of people having to live with each other and preferring not to be at each other's throats all the time.
Click to expand...
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
 
Phoenix said:
"Boycotting" is a part of the 1st amendment. As much a part of it as Rush Limbaugh's statements, The Dixie Chick's statements, Ted Nugent's statements, and even Debate politics website here! People forget that the protections afforded in the 1st amendment are from the government. The people are plenty free to speak against you for your stupid statements.
Click to expand...

Ockham said:
I'm sorry to say, you're wrong on one point. The 1st Amendment is not afforded "from the government". The Amendments and the Constitution were meant and are "limitations of government". The government didn't give me or any other citizen of this country living or dead, anything that they didn't already have... it DID however limit government from taking action against it's citizens and does not allow the government to take actions of speech which it doesn't agree with... hence, the freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

You misread that (or possible I punctuated incorrectly) The protections afforded a person in the 1st amendment are protections from the government not protections from other individuals. I didn't mean to state that they come from the government.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Yes, but political correctness refers more to social convention than 1st Amendment rights than legal limits on free speech.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't see how that is.

To me it seems that the government itself forces political correctness on others, at the rish of losing their jobs/etc should they refuse. Personally I don't think it's the government's place to decide what's correct and what isn't.
 
megaprogman said:
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.)
Click to expand...



Free Speech is in no danger whatsoever. Lush Rumbaugh et al use "free speech" to rile up the minions: the same way the NRA uses the 2nd Amendment to sell themselves.

The radio and televison airways belong to the general public, so goes the censoring . . . Now of course when people demand that Lumbaugh or some other jerk be taken off the air, such personalities claim a violation of free speech; of course just to get a rise and to place their name further into the public's line of sight.

It's all a stupid game fueled by people who really don't give a damn.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom