• 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!

Does "Political Correctness" violate "Free Speech"?

Does "Political Correctness" violate "Free Speech"?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 40.9%

  • No

    Votes: 24 54.5%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 2 4.5%
  • Total voters
    44
Redress said:
Neither restrict speech.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

The "Hate Crimes" law makes it a more punishable crime to punch someone in the face if they happen to be a member of a group that you have stated you don't like than punching someone else. So far as I'm concerned, that is punishing the thought and speech indicating that there is a group of people you dislike or disagree with. Both assaults should be treated equally.

The "Equal Employment Opportunity" laws make it illegal for me to state that I only want to hire individuals of a certain group for a position.

In both cases my ability to speak and act on my personal views (speech) are restricted or used against me by the Government.
 
That aint nice.
CanadaJohn said:
What part of the title of this thread - "Does 'Political Correctness' violate 'Free Speech' - precludes a discussion about political correctness as some right wing tangent? As I've said before, is there a reading comprehension test given before a person can be a card carrying liberal? If you pass, you're banned for life.
Click to expand...
 
Tigger said:
I disagree.

The "Hate Crimes" law makes it a more punishable crime to punch someone in the face if they happen to be a member of a group that you have stated you don't like than punching someone else. So far as I'm concerned, that is punishing the thought and speech indicating that there is a group of people you dislike or disagree with. Both assaults should be treated equally.

The "Equal Employment Opportunity" laws make it illegal for me to state that I only want to hire individuals of a certain group for a position.

In both cases my ability to speak and act on my personal views (speech) are restricted or used against me by the Government.
Click to expand...

You can think that, but you would be wrong.
 
Redress said:
Apparently my point went over your head. The point is that when you only look for "code" from one side, you are being a hack. There is as much code used by the right as the left. It is as much political correctness from the right as the left.
Click to expand...

Am I to presume that it's okay under DP rules to accuse a poster of being a "hack" or not being intelligent enough to get your point? Clearly, I touched a nerve since nothing in my posting to you would be in any way considered disrespectful and yet I get this in return. I'm glad I'm a big boy and I don't need to plead for help from others to save me.
 
Mathematician said:
Political correctness aside:
- blacks need to shut up about slavery and racism
- gays need to get back in the closet
- feminists need to shut up and let the females be "ladies"
- illegals need to get tossed out and suspended 5 years from applying for entry
Click to expand...

Wonderful example of political correctness!
 
German guy said:
Don't know about the US, but my impression about Germany is that "political correctness" is a discoursive weapon term used by far-right chauvinists to counter the justified moral outrage triggered by their chauvinistic statements.

If you want to say something racist i.e., you'll usually earn emotional disagreement from the majority, so you better say it's "political correctness" that somehow delegitimizes this disagreement. It's almost as good as godwining the debate.
Click to expand...

It is used like that in the US alot, or more accurately, people being as ass blame people pointing it out as being politically correct. However, there are cases when political correctness is a real issue. Oddly, those who complain loudest about political correctness are the ones who tend to be politically correct the most, but only when it serves them.
 
Canell said:
Howdy!

So, we have "freedom of speech" but can we use it? What do you think?

:)
Click to expand...

"Political correctness" is nothing more than a whine that wingnuts blurt out because they can't bear to hear their nonsense criticized.
 
Redress said:
You can think that, but you would be wrong.
Click to expand...

On what basis, Redress? How is it that you can suggest that two issues where my speech is directly infringed upon by the Federal Government are not 1st Amendment issues?
 
Tigger said:
On what basis, Redress? How is it that you can suggest that two issues where my speech is directly infringed upon by the Federal Government are not 1st Amendment issues?
Click to expand...

Punching and hiring are not speech.
 
Tigger said:
On what basis, Redress? How is it that you can suggest that two issues where my speech is directly infringed upon by the Federal Government are not 1st Amendment issues?
Click to expand...

The law has a long tradition (and you're all for traditions, right?) of treating the same act differently based on the motive or intent behind the act. Murder for hire is treated more harshly than murder in the heat of passion.

Hate crimes do not punish the speech; They punish the act and provide more serious consequences for the act because of it's intent or motive.
 
mak2 said:
about slavery...maybe, but do you think we have attained a truly post racist society? I really dont. I dont think gays should have to live their live secretely and dishonestly. Ladies should be able to deicide how they are, and we created the illegal immigrant mess, tossing them after allowing them to create a life here and stay for years and years is not exactly a civilized answer to a group that have contributed so much to our society.
Click to expand...

Not perfectly no, but talking about slavery to people that don't know it by people that don't know it, is just a bunch of demogoguery.
 
Redress said:
So you think we should be politically correct about political correctness.
Click to expand...

No. I think we should simply stop protecting people from hearing the reality of the situation that they are in, and which in many cases they deserve to be in.

Redress said:
Punching and hiring are not speech.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending the right to assault someone. I'm simply suggesting that it's the ASSAULT that should be punished, not the fact that the assault was on some group that the person doesn't like. That's the equivelant of a parent punishing a child more harshly because he punched his sister, who he doesn't like rather than the brother that he does like. Are we punishing the assault or the fact that the assaulted one happens to be someone the assaulter doesn't like.

Hiring is most definitely a speech issue. I can't hang a sign in my window that says "Irish need not apply". If that isn't speech, I'm not sure what is.
 
sangha said:
The law has a long tradition (and you're all for traditions, right?) of treating the same act differently based on the motive or intent behind the act. Murder for hire is treated more harshly than murder in the heat of passion.

Hate crimes do not punish the speech; They punish the act and provide more serious consequences for the act because of it's intent or motive.
Click to expand...

That's part of the reason I find very little value in the US Legal System.
 
German guy said:
Don't know about the US, but my impression about Germany is that "political correctness" is a discoursive weapon term used by far-right chauvinists to counter the justified moral outrage triggered by their chauvinistic statements.

If you want to say something racist i.e., you'll usually earn emotional disagreement from the majority, so you better say it's "political correctness" that somehow delegitimizes this disagreement. It's almost as good as godwining the debate.
Click to expand...

well, this seems to assume such outrage is justified to begin with, not to mention basing that justification on the immediate reaction of a crowd. I rather look at a things on a case by case basis
 
It would be the discrimination that is against the law. Not the sign. Course the sign would be kinda incriminating.
Tigger said:
No. I think we should simply stop protecting people from hearing the reality of the situation that they are in, and which in many cases they deserve to be in.



I'm not defending the right to assault someone. I'm simply suggesting that it's the ASSAULT that should be punished, not the fact that the assault was on some group that the person doesn't like. That's the equivelant of a parent punishing a child more harshly because he punched his sister, who he doesn't like rather than the brother that he does like. Are we punishing the assault or the fact that the assaulted one happens to be someone the assaulter doesn't like.

Hiring is most definitely a speech issue. I can't hang a sign in my window that says "Irish need not apply". If that isn't speech, I'm not sure what is.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
It would be the discrimination that is against the law. Not the sign. Course the sign would be kinda incriminating.
Click to expand...

Which is, in my mind at least, an extension of speech.
 
German guy said:
No, I don't feel like digging any of it up now.

But rest assured, there is nothing as "trendy" among far-right people than whining about alleged "political correctness". Which basically just means they're upset the mainstream is less right-wing than they are and they can't deal with constant disagreement, so they have to construct a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I've been called a bigot numerous times when citing a particular poll from Pew concerning Islamic religious attitudes. And it's a given that someone will simply assume that Pew is some weird right wing hate group.

So it seems rather clear to me that a PC mentality can, indeed, become pervasive and overly burdensome
 
Tigger said:
No. It just means that like many other things, some of us are going to ignore it, regardless.
Click to expand...
You are more than welcome to ignore those who wish for political correctness.

You can start with the EEOC. The idea that I would have to interview and/or accept applications from people who I wouldn't hire if they were the only candidate.
Click to expand...
Interviewing and accepting applications is not the same thing as hiring people, which is what you said.

The problem is that there is nothing preventing people from speaking UnTruth either.
Click to expand...
A lament myself and many others like me have about Fox News and MSNBC.

It's just part of it.

Which is part of why I have very little use for America and/or its system of Government at this point in history.
Click to expand...
I'm confused, are you advocating people NOT being allowed to express opposing opinions? Could you please clarify?

Perotista said:
PC is more about feel good language. Not using words that would make someone else feel bad. Although PC has frequently been used to suppress the voicing of ones political views. So in that way, yes PC does sometimes suppress free speech.

But I am an old foggie who doesn’t give PC a second thought. I would rather someone come to me, call me a few names and tell me he hates my gut, at least I know where I stand with him. That is a lot better than having him come up to me smiling and say some nice things he doesn’t mean, then do the back stabbing thing behind my back. But I suppose way too many people have very thin skins today. Hiding true feelings behind PC sometimes can cause those feeling to build up and have an eruption occur. Whereas getting things out in the open sort of acts like a safety valve.

So I will smile and tell you what you want to hear and then do my dirty work behind you backs. I can be really good at PC’ing.
Click to expand...
I don't think of political correctness as being two faced. I think of political correctness as not saying inflammatory things about a particular demographic of people. If you are white and would go up to a black person you know and tell them you think they are a liar and an unethical person, that would not be in violation of political correctness. But if you called her the "n" word and a female dog, it would be.
 
sangha said:
It's not just the US. All legal systems have such a tradition. And you just love tradition, don't you?
Click to expand...

I have a propensity towards Traditionalism, but I wouldn't say that I'm in love with it. A lot of my problem in this case is that too much emphasis is placed on the motive and not enough on the act itself. Motive does play some role, but it is the act itself which should be the main focus, and that doesn't seem to be the way in this system anymore. As for what other countries do.... I really couldn't care any less.
 
Tigger said:
No. I think we should simply stop protecting people from hearing the reality of the situation that they are in, and which in many cases they deserve to be in.
Click to expand...

SO you think the government should regulate speech.



I'm not defending the right to assault someone. I'm simply suggesting that it's the ASSAULT that should be punished, not the fact that the assault was on some group that the person doesn't like. That's the equivelant of a parent punishing a child more harshly because he punched his sister, who he doesn't like rather than the brother that he does like. Are we punishing the assault or the fact that the assaulted one happens to be someone the assaulter doesn't like.
Click to expand...

So not a speech issue.

Hiring is most definitely a speech issue. I can't hang a sign in my window that says "Irish need not apply". If that isn't speech, I'm not sure what is.
Click to expand...

The issue with the sign would not be the speech, but the hiring practice. The sign would be evidence.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I'm confused, are you advocating people NOT being allowed to express opposing opinions? Could you please clarify?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly what I am advocating. I'm not a strong proponent of the Rights system the US uses. I'm more a proponent of a Privileges system.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I don't know, I've been called a bigot numerous times when citing a particular poll from Pew concerning Islamic religious attitudes. And it's a given that someone will simply assume that Pew is some weird right wing hate group.

So it seems rather clear to me that a PC mentality can, indeed, become pervasive and overly burdensome
Click to expand...

Hm, I just wonder if it needs to be called "political correctness" in that case. Maybe it's just a "false assumption common in the mainstream".

The term "political correctness" is usually used by right-leaning people against a left mainstream, but I think such false assumptions as well occur on the right side of the spectrum and are challenged by left-leaning people.
 
Tigger said:
I have a propensity towards Traditionalism, but I wouldn't say that I'm in love with it. A lot of my problem in this case is that too much emphasis is placed on the motive and not enough on the act itself. Motive does play some role, but it is the act itself which should be the main focus, and that doesn't seem to be the way in this system anymore. As for what other countries do.... I really couldn't care any less.
Click to expand...

Under these traditions, the act *is* the main focus, with the motive only providing for enhanced sentences.

And I find it odd that you reject the legal systems of the US *and* every other other nation that has ever existed. It's an unusual position for someone who values order as much as you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom