• 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
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay; it's simple: how does a discussion about freedom of speech vs Lush Rumbaugh, translate into a comment like this:

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.
Click to expand...

What lunatic professors? What universities? "little eichmans"?? How does that reply tie into the subject? It's outta left field: it's a convoluted statement.
 
jet57 said:
I am serious; show that his answer wasn't convoluted: ga'head
Click to expand...

Debating you is not to be taken seriously... noted.
 
jet57 said:
Okay; it's simple: how does a discussion about freedom of speech vs Lush Rumbaugh, translate into a comment like this:What lunatic professors? What universities? "little eichmans"?? How does that reply tie into the subject? It's outta left field: it's a convoluted statement.
Click to expand...
...and then you answer it.It isn't convoluted if it pertains to the post he answered. The OP has nothing to do with the progression of a thread because threads have a life of their own.
 
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...

The First Amendment protects us from the Government. An employer can fire and employee for something they say, a business can cancel a contract with someone because of something they said(Hank Williams Jr)...and a person can refuse to buy something because of something someone says...none of which harm the first amendment.
 
Bodhisattva said:
...and then you answer it.It isn't convoluted if it pertains to the post he answered. The OP has nothing to do with the progression of a thread because threads have a life of their own.
Click to expand...

I answered because I thought better of a short reply: you don't seem to grasp the phrase "convoluted statement".

I went aaaall the way back through the thread, and cpwill's statement is a convoluted repsonse that has nothing to do with the previous post. Thats' why I challenged it. If you can't see that then maybe debating with you would be pointless and unproductive.

So, you say it's not convoluted; so back that up.
 
I can call my boss a **** and he can fire me
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
I answered because I thought better of a short reply: you don't seem to grasp the phrase "convoluted statement".

I went aaaall the way back through the thread, and cpwill's statement is a convoluted repsonse that has nothing to do with the previous post. Thats' why I challenged it. If you can't see that then maybe debating with you would be pointless and unproductive.

So, you say it's not convoluted; so back that up.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

convoluted\KAHN-vuh-loo-tud\DEFINITIONadjective

1: having many twists and curves
2: involved, intricate
Click to expand...

Merriam-Webster Online

If you find that convoluted then your thinking is convoluted...
 
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...

I think people missed the point of your post, so I am going to enlarge upon it as I see your meaning, though I may be adding my own meaning instead of emphasizing yours.

The right to free speech is protected in the first amendment by preventing the government from infringing on free speech. However, the attitude of support for free speech goes way beyond protecting us from the government ( as a social matter, not a legal one). It is the social response which is being discussed, not the legal.

The very notion of free speech has its roots in a trust in the workings of the marketplace of ideas. Without trust in the workings of that marketplace, we might as well regulate speech. After all, if we don't believe the common man can handle 'dangerous ideas', and see them for what they are, then we ought to take steps to protect the populace, and to hell with the first amendment. If we do trust that the common man can see a 'dangerous idea' for what it is, then to hell with the notion of boycotts and other types of social coercion, as they are entirely unnecessary. To engage in the impulse to silence others (through any means, legal or social) is to betray a lack of faith in the ability of the participants of a society to eventually arrive at the most worthy idea and to dispense with the loathsome.

The foundation of representative democracy is partially built from the notion that the marketplace of ideas can be trusted. Entertaining any kind of notion to silence others is the same as admitting that democracy cannot work. Think it through: If you can't trust your fellow citizen to be persuaded to (eventually) vote for the most worthy of ideas, then why in the hell are letting him/her vote in the first place?

The impulse to silence others whether through social coercion or through legislative remedy is a tyrannical one. Democracy is better off when people are expected to recognize for themselves that when entertainers like Rush Limbaugh speak that they are probably wrong, loathsome and/or deceptive.
 
Last edited:
Now, with all that said...

I do support disclosure of donations. Part of the marketplace of ideas is discernment gained through know WHO is hiring the biggest bullhorn. So, knowing the source of the funding enhances the marketplace of ideas, rather than detracting from it.
 
You can say whatever you want, you are still responsible for that speech. Nobody has any responsibility to make you feel good for what you say.
 
Damn, I voted before I read the first post. My brain was like "Free Speech Question" = "Is Free Speech Good?"

Must. Get. More. Sleep.
 
How about this for an exercise in free speech.....

 
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...

Hell if not for advertisers I might be watching bukkake porn every morning instead of the news. But ABC might get some calls on that one.
 
jet57 said:
What repercussions from the government?
Click to expand...

DisneyDude posted :
"What you don't have is the right to live free of its repercussions"
Click to expand...

The people of the United States do have the right to live free of repercussions from the government as a result of their free speech.
 
Phoenix said:
DisneyDude posted :

The people of the United States do have the right to live free of repercussions from the government as a result of their free speech.
Click to expand...

Again what repercussions?? I'm tryig to get what's his name to point ut some of the government repercussions against free speech, and now you say that there are repercussions. So what repercussions? Or are you two just walking down conspiracy lane.
 
jet57 said:
Nice to know that you can't read or interpret the English language.

So, maybe this is where we stop. I thought it owuld get pointless; and it has.
Click to expand...

Right... instead of proving anything, just make a baseless claim. Good job buddy. :lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
Right... instead of proving anything, just make a baseless claim. Good job buddy. :lol:
Click to expand...


Yeah; bad job for you. I asked 'what repercussions from the government ovder free speech, and you can't answer either.

So it's you and that other guy have the proving to do.
 
jet57 said:
Yeah; bad job for you. I asked 'what repercussions from the government ovder free speech, and you can't answer either.

So it's you and that other guy have the proving to do.
Click to expand...

Noooo... we were talking about a statement that you called convoluted and haven't backed up.

You are talking to somebody else about repercussions...
 
ThePlayDrive said:
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.

H.L. Mencken wrote that the urge to save the world is always a disguise for the urge to rule it. The explains (to me, anyhow) some folks' positions/opinions.
Click to expand...
 
Phoenix said:
The people of the United States do have the right to live free of repercussions from the government as a result of their free speech.
Click to expand...

Try spreading government secrets and see how free you are from repercussions from the government. Try threatening the life of the President and see how free you are from repercussions from the government. Doesn't work that way.
 
Cephus said:
Try spreading government secrets and see how free you are from repercussions from the government. Try threatening the life of the President and see how free you are from repercussions from the government. Doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...
Your examples aren't free speech, they're crimes.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Noooo... we were talking about a statement that you called convoluted and haven't backed up.

You are talking to somebody else about repercussions...
Click to expand...

Show the post: I remember saying that there was a convoluted statement made, but I don't where it is actually.
 
Moot said:
Your examples aren't free speech, they're crimes.
Click to expand...

They are limits to free speech regardless. A "crime" is simply the government declaring that you can't do something or you'll be punished.
 
Cephus said:
They are limits to free speech regardless. A "crime" is simply the government declaring that you can't do something or you'll be punished.
Click to expand...
No rights are absolute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom