• 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!

Do You Support Free Speech? Really? Would you defend it if attacked?

Do you support Free Speech? Would you defend it if attacked?

  • I support free speech but wouldn’t say anything if an opponent were being attacked

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • If an opponent has his free speech right attacked, I’ll stay quiet and watch

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
Trump can spout whatever lies he wants to, there is simply no reason twitter has to allow him access to their service.
Cry more.

Crying? No. ROTFLOL...

I’m helping identify what Leftists believe regarding free speech.

What we have learned is Leftists do not support free speech.

The words of Leftists here have made that very clear thus far.

You see, that’s the beauty of free speech... and why I encourage it. You get a glimpse into the true soul of people.
 
You just illustrated you do not support free speech.

Of course Biden speaking out as he did in an attempt to deny another’s free speech... is free speech. It’s also idiotic.


That’s stupid. Trump has all the rights of an American citizen.

What Harris said in her attempt to shut down the twitter account of Trump is moronic, but it gives us insight to who this person really is. That’s the beauty of free speech. She and Biden were given sufficient rope, and they hung themselves with it.

This discussion reveals Leftists do not support free speech. There is no disgust at what Biden and Harris have attempted in trying to shut down the speech of their political opponent. But a defense of it.

Oi vey.

No, the discussion reveals that what I told you you cannot comprehend the core issue that you brought to the table. Clearly you lack command of what the 1st amendment actually is.


For one, it does not exist to protect the POTUS and what he says in his role as President,

How the First Amendment Applies to Trump’s Presidency | The New Yorker

and two, all of the things you are complaining about are actually expressions of free speech.
 
Look at what happens to you when you’re frustrated?

Given the opportunity to do the right thing when nobody is looking, you wouldn’t... would you? Instead you seem like the kind of fella that would rejoice and partake in mob behavior denying someone their free speech... wouldn’t you? It’d be fun for you, trying to exact revenge... would it not?

I on the other hand am for the maximum of free speech. I encourage it. Defend it. Believe in its ability to serve society best. Unlike Leftists here. I’d rather be shot between the eyes than deny an opponent their right to speak freely.

You? My guess is not so much.
You are always wrong and post bull****, just like this.
Everyone here knows this, and laughs at you.
All of your posts are ignorant, and deserve to be mocked and ignored.
Typical racist posting behavior.
 
How is the left silencing anything? They don't have the levers of government to achieve this.

Here is the Tech Giant Purge List of Prominent Conservative Websites

"Young Cons: Extremely popular conservative news site and received millions of daily readers during the election. The website received nearly all of its traffic from Facebook. Since 2016 Facebook shut down stories to Young Cons. Each algorithm change meant less traffic for the popular website. YoungCons was blacklisted by Facebook and struggles to maintain readers. The site regularly switches domains to save traffic. — Update– YoungCons recently closed shop. Facebook did this.

SarahPalin.com: With over 4 million fans one of the popular conservative pages on Facebook until Facebook blocked all traffic to the website. The page was forced to change the domain to save traffic numbers. Traffic has plummeted.

Right Wing News: Right Wing News grew to an enormous website in the past few years thanks its popularity on Facebook. In July of 2015, in just a week, the Right Wing News Facebook page reached 133 million people. Because conservatives were sharing content they were interested in, Right Wing News (with 3.6 million Facebook likes ) was driving the same amount of web traffic as some of the biggest newspapers in America. Since the 2016 election Facebook blocked traffic to the website. Owner John Hawkins announced he was shutting down the website in January.

Western Journalism: Newsweek reported that the site has grown from receiving 1,000 page views a day in 2009[3] to more than 1 million during 2016. The website was averaging around 6 million page views a day according to Quantcast during the election. Today it is down to around 500,000 a day. Western Journalism was blacklisted by Facebook.

The Gateway Pundit: TGP was ranked as the 4th most influential conservative publisher during the 2016 election. The site in 2016 received nearly a third of its traffic from Facebook. In March Facebook blocked all traffic from recent stories to the website. TGP advertised with Facebook and is another top conservative website blacklisted by the company. TGP is also shadow-banned by Google and frequently attacked and smeared by the liberal media. TGP writers Jim Hoft, Cassandra Fairbanks and Cristina Laila were all shadowbanned by Twitter.

President Trump Facebook page: A recent algorithm change has caused President Donald Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts to plummet a whopping 45%. In contrast, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) do not appear to have suffered a comparable decline in Facebook engagement, reported Breitbart’s Alum Bokhari.

Independent Journal Review: A massive conservative website based on Facebook audience. The Independent Journal Review (IJR) terminated a number of its employees in March, leaving an unclear future for the millennial-focused conservative website that has recently faced a declining audience. IDF was also shadow-banned and blacklisted.

Breitbart.com: Breitbart was the most influential conservative news source in 2016 with a massive audience. Since the election Breitbart is constantly targeted and smeared by far left operations. Breitbart advertising was targeted by Sleeping Giants and other Soros sites.

InfoWars: Infowars is another dominant conservative site with enormous traffic. After several years of video production and tens of thousands of video YouTube gave Infowars its third strike in March and threatened to shut the YouTube Channel down. In August YouTube, Facebook, Apple and Spotify colluded and eliminated Infowars in a 12 hour stretch.

Rightside Broadcasting: This YouTube Channel had millions of views before the election. Since 2016 YouTube has shadow-banned all of their videos. YouTube has classified its videos of President Trump at a rally as hate speech. YouTube has demonetized hundreds of its videos. YouTube hides its videos. Income for the site is down 95% since the election.

Natural News: A very prominent health website and the world’s top source on natural health. The site receives tens of thousands of readers every day. YouTube wiped out over 1,700 videos covering everything from nutrition, natural medicine, history, science and current events."

FYI
 
You are always wrong and post bull****, just like this.
Everyone here knows this, and laughs at you.
All of your posts are ignorant, and deserve to be mocked and ignored.
Typical racist posting behavior.

I see you are a little excited.

I am “always wrong”? That is incorrect. For example, this thread I summarized Leftists here do not support free speech. Their words illustrate they do not. So, right out of the box, looking at this post alone... GONG!!! 100% Wrong.

The Greta Thunberg Leftists like you can laugh all they like... but like you right now... I know you people aren’t laughing. You’re generally humorless. Angry. Frustrated. Vindictive.

Of course all my posts are ignorant to you. You’re not exactly the paragon of intelligence.

As for mocking and ignoring, your skill set handicaps you seriously with the former, and you seem to have difficulty ignoring me. I wouldn’t mind if you did ignore me... don’t mind if you keep following me around like a puppy.

Find one racist post. ONE. Run along and find one.

Now back to free speech. In a private space with few watching, my guess is you would eagerly deny someone their right to free speech and rejoice in doing so. The vindictiveness dripping from your posts tends to indicate that.

You just do not seem like the kind of person who would stand up for an opponent and defend them from unruly actions by those on your side of the political spectrum... because you’re a follower.
 
Last edited:
Threats violate the TOS, unless you are orange, brainless, and powerful with a lot of followers.

So much for you claim to be an independent. More like a virulent leftist from this and other comments that you have made. Very untruthful of you.
 
In the case of Giuliani, no. They shouldn't even pretend to have the right to tell anyone who can and cannot be allowed to speak.

In Trump's case, it's just Twitter. That isn't his ability to speak, although it is a massively sized monopoly that controls a large amount of the space that is used for public discourse. Kicking him off of twitter, would be line physically pushing him out of the town square.

So there is a bit of a difference to both of these accounts. But yes, one should always support free speech. It's one of the cornerstones of our society that places us head and shoulders above the other 1st world countries.

Limiting the Presidents use of various types of communication is ridiculous. It is violating "free speech". You cannot have it both ways, it's free speech or it isn't.
 
So, you’re against free speech of you don’t like what the individual says.*

The 1st amendment was crafted to protect the most abrasive political speech from government interference.

Thanks for posting.

*Yelling “FIRE!!” In a crowded theatre etc of course being the rare exception.
I added what the First Amendment protects in red.

There is no first Amendment protection from private entities. Your employer can regulate what you say on the job. A newspaper can decline to post your letter to the editor.

Funny thing is that before Twitter, the president used to release White House press releases. In fact, this is a far better avenue for releasing mattes of importance instead of the Caligula rants we have now gotten daily.
 
Limiting the Presidents use of various types of communication is ridiculous. It is violating "free speech". You cannot have it both ways, it's free speech or it isn't.
Are you saying a private company must publish whatever the president says? That's never been our history and that's not what the constitution states. The operative words are, "Congress shall make no law..."
 
So much for you claim to be an independent. More like a virulent leftist from this and other comments that you have made. Very untruthful of you.

Thanks for your assessment. Unfortunately, I don't care.
 
You just illustrated you do not support free speech.

Of course Biden speaking out as he did in an attempt to deny another’s free speech... is free speech. It’s also idiotic.


That’s stupid. Trump has all the rights of an American citizen.

What Harris said in her attempt to shut down the twitter account of Trump is moronic, but it gives us insight to who this person really is. That’s the beauty of free speech. She and Biden were given sufficient rope, and they hung themselves with it.

This discussion reveals Leftists do not support free speech. There is no disgust at what Biden and Harris have attempted in trying to shut down the speech of their political opponent. But a defense of it.

Oi vey.

There is a difference between agreeing with another's speech and wanting to silence that speech. I, along with others on this board, disagree with what Biden has said. Nevertheless, we believe all true patriots will defend his right to say it.

That's the part you don't get. You are even free to come on here and slander anyone you please, including me, saying I and others do not support free speech, when clearly we do. The great thing about written forums like this is you words remain for all to see. People get to decide for themselves whether "leftists do not support free speech." You are even free to deny what you wrote even though everyone can see it in black and white. So, please, by all means, continue to declare that leftists are anti-free speech. It's your reputation and credibility that is being sullied, not ours.
 
Recently we have had two Democrats running for President seeking to shut down the speech:

1. Joe Biden writing all major news outlets (print and TV) in an attempt to stop Rudy Giuliani, the personal lawyer of the president Trump from disseminating his views.

2. Kamala Harris has pushed to get Trump banned from Twitter.

Neither of these are violations of Free Speech. You don't seem to understand what Freedom of Speech is.
 
I added what the First Amendment protects in red.

There is no first Amendment protection from private entities. Your employer can regulate what you say on the job. A newspaper can decline to post your letter to the editor.

Funny thing is that before Twitter, the president used to release White House press releases. In fact, this is a far better avenue for releasing mattes of importance instead of the Caligula rants we have now gotten daily.

So you are trying to dance around and away from defending free speech.

Here is a part of my OP... which you are trying to dance around:

In days not so long ago, Democrats stated they would aggressively defend the right of their opponent to say what they wanted, even if they disagreed with it profusely.

Would you come to the defense of a political opponent who has had his speech curtailed? Would you defend that individual to speak their mind? Would you even encourage it?

A couple (like in two) Leftists have smacked Kamala in this forum for her stupidity, but I sure haven’t seen Leftists as a whole defend free speech when attacked by Biden and Kamala.

You haven’t stated you would defend an opponent from being silenced, or the attempt of it. I’m not surprised.

If Trump felt WH Releases were a far better Avenue, he would use it. Obviously it isn’t. It’s laughable actually. The easiest way to measure how successful his tweets are is by much the opposition wants it shut down.
 
Neither of these are violations of Free Speech. You don't seem to understand what Freedom of Speech is.

In days not so long ago, Democrats stated they would aggressively defend the right of their opponent to say what they wanted, even if they disagreed with it profusely.

Would you come to the defense of a political opponent who has had his speech curtailed? Would you defend that individual to speak their mind? Would you even encourage it?

You are avoiding the questions in the OP.

I’m not surprised by your answer.
 
Biden should be free to utter whatever speech he wants. Harris, too. But so should the opposition have free speech. I don't even believe "hate speech" should be banned. I don't agree with prohibiting anyone from using Twitter, Facebook or UTube. ALL speech should be allowed if we are truly a free country. Let "the people" sort it out for themselves.
 
Biden should be free to utter whatever speech he wants. Harris, too. But so should the opposition have free speech. I don't even believe "hate speech" should be banned. I don't agree with prohibiting anyone from using Twitter, Facebook or UTube. ALL speech should be allowed if we are truly a free country. Let "the people" sort it out for themselves.

100% agree.
 
With all the coverage on Trump, the impeachment and the 2020 election, makes me wonder if the "equal time rule" and "fairness doctrine" are being applied by the networks.

Equal Time Rule | The First Amendment Encyclopedia

Those rules went away during the Reagan years. The FCC has, for all intents and purposes, been completely de-fanged. Now anyone with enough money can secure a cable channel or Internet feed and spew whatever is on their minds. Cable news is all about ratings, not public service. They all (and I mean ALL) put on the stories and the guests that they believe will garner the biggest audiences. They have no interest in presenting balanced socially responsible journalism. It is all about being provocative and 'outraged' over some of the stupidest things possible.

The unfortunate thing about this is the Founding Fathers did not envision a time when anyone could literally reach tens of millions of viewers and/or listeners/readers instantly. Consequently, many of the pundits take no responsibility for what they say or how it could reasonably be expected to trigger the mentally unstable or the ideologically blinded. Then, when one of these nutjobs goes off and slaughters a bunch of innocents, the pundit gets to hide behind the 1st amendment, taking no responsibility for their role in the carnage.
 
Biden should be free to utter whatever speech he wants. Harris, too. But so should the opposition have free speech. I don't even believe "hate speech" should be banned. I don't agree with prohibiting anyone from using Twitter, Facebook or UTube. ALL speech should be allowed if we are truly a free country. Let "the people" sort it out for themselves.

Twitter etc are private entities. If the government forces them to carry speech they do not wish to carry it violates their free speech rights.

You are of course free to state your opinion of what their policies ought to be, and they are free to ignore it and use the policies they prefer.
 
Those rules went away during the Reagan years. The FCC has, for all intents and purposes, been completely de-fanged. Now anyone with enough money can secure a cable channel or Internet feed and spew whatever is on their minds. Cable news is all about ratings, not public service. They all (and I mean ALL) put on the stories and the guests that they believe will garner the biggest audiences. They have no interest in presenting balanced socially responsible journalism. It is all about being provocative and 'outraged' over some of the stupidest things possible.
That’s great that anyone with the resources can get a cable channel or internet feed. That’s wonderful, something to be celebrated.

Like the Goebbels Media Brain **** Machine is short of resources.

It seems Leftists do not like competition of ideas. They don’t.


The unfortunate thing about this is the Founding Fathers did not envision a time when anyone could literally reach tens of millions of viewers and/or listeners/readers instantly. Consequently, many of the pundits take no responsibility for what they say or how it could reasonably be expected to trigger the mentally unstable or the ideologically blinded. Then, when one of these nutjobs goes off and slaughters a bunch of innocents, the pundit gets to hide behind the 1st amendment, taking no responsibility for their role in the carnage.
The Founders would have loved to have reached tens of millions instantly.

It helped knock down many false claims by the Goebbels Media. Like the fake documents in the dying days of the election brought forth by the Goebbels Media hack Dan Rather... in an attempt to swing an election. It was every day citizens who exposed the fraud.

Or, beating back the media lies about Kavanaugh.

Or the Covington kids.

Or the Russian collusion hoax.
 
Those rules went away during the Reagan years. The FCC has, for all intents and purposes, been completely de-fanged. Now anyone with enough money can secure a cable channel or Internet feed and spew whatever is on their minds. Cable news is all about ratings, not public service. They all (and I mean ALL) put on the stories and the guests that they believe will garner the biggest audiences. They have no interest in presenting balanced socially responsible journalism. It is all about being provocative and 'outraged' over some of the stupidest things possible.

The unfortunate thing about this is the Founding Fathers did not envision a time when anyone could literally reach tens of millions of viewers and/or listeners/readers instantly. Consequently, many of the pundits take no responsibility for what they say or how it could reasonably be expected to trigger the mentally unstable or the ideologically blinded. Then, when one of these nutjobs goes off and slaughters a bunch of innocents, the pundit gets to hide behind the 1st amendment, taking no responsibility for their role in the carnage.

As a strong believer in free speech rights, I think people who blame speech they disagree with for carnage need to be silenced.

Oh wait...

But really, it's a pretty big leap to blame "punditry" for "carnage".
 
Twitter etc are private entities. If the government forces them to carry speech they do not wish to carry it violates their free speech rights.

You are of course free to state your opinion of what their policies ought to be, and they are free to ignore it and use the policies they prefer.

They are basically monopolies in their respective fields. As such, they are the only game in town, and have a responsibility to provide open access to anyone and everyone. If you had a monopoly on steel production, you would be required to sell your steel to anyone who had the money to buy it. In this modern world, social media monopoly is no different than steel was in the past. The role of government should be to level the playing field, which means everyone has the same opportunities to compete; in this case the competition is speech.
 
They are basically monopolies in their respective fields. As such, they are the only game in town, and have a responsibility to provide open access to anyone and everyone. If you had a monopoly on steel production, you would be required to sell your steel to anyone who had the money to buy it. In this modern world, social media monopoly is no different than steel was in the past. The role of government should be to level the playing field, which means everyone has the same opportunities to compete; in this case the competition is speech.

That, putting it mildly, is a stretch. I can get speech on my phone, tablet and computer about 1 bazillion ways without twitter, (snapchat, instagram, facebook, etc, etc, etc,).

I'm doing it now!
 
Here is the Tech Giant Purge List of Prominent Conservative Websites

"Young Cons: Extremely popular conservative news site and received millions of daily readers during the election. The website received nearly all of its traffic from Facebook. Since 2016 Facebook shut down stories to Young Cons. Each algorithm change meant less traffic for the popular website. YoungCons was blacklisted by Facebook and struggles to maintain readers. The site regularly switches domains to save traffic. — Update– YoungCons recently closed shop. Facebook did this.

SarahPalin.com: With over 4 million fans one of the popular conservative pages on Facebook until Facebook blocked all traffic to the website. The page was forced to change the domain to save traffic numbers. Traffic has plummeted.

Right Wing News: Right Wing News grew to an enormous website in the past few years thanks its popularity on Facebook. In July of 2015, in just a week, the Right Wing News Facebook page reached 133 million people. Because conservatives were sharing content they were interested in, Right Wing News (with 3.6 million Facebook likes ) was driving the same amount of web traffic as some of the biggest newspapers in America. Since the 2016 election Facebook blocked traffic to the website. Owner John Hawkins announced he was shutting down the website in January.

Western Journalism: Newsweek reported that the site has grown from receiving 1,000 page views a day in 2009[3] to more than 1 million during 2016. The website was averaging around 6 million page views a day according to Quantcast during the election. Today it is down to around 500,000 a day. Western Journalism was blacklisted by Facebook.

The Gateway Pundit: TGP was ranked as the 4th most influential conservative publisher during the 2016 election. The site in 2016 received nearly a third of its traffic from Facebook. In March Facebook blocked all traffic from recent stories to the website. TGP advertised with Facebook and is another top conservative website blacklisted by the company. TGP is also shadow-banned by Google and frequently attacked and smeared by the liberal media. TGP writers Jim Hoft, Cassandra Fairbanks and Cristina Laila were all shadowbanned by Twitter.

President Trump Facebook page: A recent algorithm change has caused President Donald Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts to plummet a whopping 45%. In contrast, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) do not appear to have suffered a comparable decline in Facebook engagement, reported Breitbart’s Alum Bokhari.

Independent Journal Review: A massive conservative website based on Facebook audience. The Independent Journal Review (IJR) terminated a number of its employees in March, leaving an unclear future for the millennial-focused conservative website that has recently faced a declining audience. IDF was also shadow-banned and blacklisted.

Breitbart.com: Breitbart was the most influential conservative news source in 2016 with a massive audience. Since the election Breitbart is constantly targeted and smeared by far left operations. Breitbart advertising was targeted by Sleeping Giants and other Soros sites.

InfoWars: Infowars is another dominant conservative site with enormous traffic. After several years of video production and tens of thousands of video YouTube gave Infowars its third strike in March and threatened to shut the YouTube Channel down. In August YouTube, Facebook, Apple and Spotify colluded and eliminated Infowars in a 12 hour stretch.

Rightside Broadcasting: This YouTube Channel had millions of views before the election. Since 2016 YouTube has shadow-banned all of their videos. YouTube has classified its videos of President Trump at a rally as hate speech. YouTube has demonetized hundreds of its videos. YouTube hides its videos. Income for the site is down 95% since the election.

Natural News: A very prominent health website and the world’s top source on natural health. The site receives tens of thousands of readers every day. YouTube wiped out over 1,700 videos covering everything from nutrition, natural medicine, history, science and current events."

FYI

Perhaps you didn't understand the question, or don't understand the fundamentals of Freedom of Speech and what it means to suppress it.
 
Perhaps you didn't understand the question, or don't understand the fundamentals of Freedom of Speech and what it means to suppress it.

Possibly. It is also possible some are not paying attention to current events.

When law enforcement can’t guarantee our liberty, law enforcement has failed.

When law enforcement can’t guarantee our liberty, law enforcement has failed.

I’m supposed to be encouraged, but I’m not.

In the aftermath of this month’s violent attack on Charles Murray and a Middlebury professor, I’m supposed to be encouraged, as a supporter of free speech and academic freedom in higher education, that pundits, professors, and writers from across the political spectrum have united to condemn mob censorship. I’m supposed to be encouraged that even stalwart men of the left such as New York Times columnists Frank Bruni and Nicholas Kristof are waking up to the modern American academy’s serious intellectual-diversity problem. And I’m supposed to be encouraged that Middlebury’s president and dozens of Middlebury professors have united to express their support for free speech.

But I’m not.

I’m certainly grateful for the near-unanimous condemnation of the protesters and rioters at Middlebury (and also at Berkeley, where the so-called “black bloc” shut down Milo Yiannopoulos’s planned speech, started fires, vandalized shops, and beat Trump supporters in the streets), but I’m not encouraged, and I don’t think other free-speech advocates should be either.

Why? Because the rioters won. In two key incidents at two important colleges, violent and disruptive protesters succeeded in shutting down free speech.

In Berkeley, police literally stood back and let the riot unfold, later defending their passive approach on the grounds that actually enforcing the law could have caused greater injury. As it was, they intervened on a case-by-case basis to stop individual beatings and let rioters vandalize 15 buildings. University police made one arrest. City police reported zero arrests on the night of the riots.

The Middlebury incident is more recent, and investigations are still ongoing, but protesters sent a liberal professor to the hospital after they “rocked, pounded, and jumped on” her vehicle, and dozens of students succeeded in drowning out Murray’s speech with their boos. So far, they have faced no consequences for their actions.

Let’s be clear. Unless the law is used to protect liberty, all the tut-tutting in the world won’t protect free speech. Pundits and professors don’t control the streets. If the mob is able to dictate the facts on the ground, op-eds and professor letters will be meaningless.

In the longer term, odes to intellectual diversity are also meaningless unless they’re accompanied by concrete actions. Rigid, ideologically homogeneous cultures — often existing in open defiance of the constitutional protections of free speech and religious liberty — are manufacturing and empowering student radicals on a grand scale. It’s time to end discrimination against conservative viewpoints on campus and declare unequivocally that the Constitution applies everywhere the government reaches, not just to the land outside the ivy-covered walls.

In the longer term, odes to intellectual diversity are also meaningless unless they’re accompanied by concrete actions.

Liberalism cannot exist without the rule of law, and law enforcement doesn’t just exist to protect public safety but also to guarantee American liberty. If the mob can suppress liberty simply by threatening any law-enforcement officers who stand in its way, then law enforcement has failed"

What Does Free Speech Mean?
 
Back
Top Bottom