• 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!

Hating Free Speech

Zyphlin said:
[See several posts above and on previous page]
Click to expand...
It seems to me Zyphlin has given us as thorough an analysis of this business as we're likely to get from any quarter.
I would simply add this test:

Whenever speech or expression is at issue, just look to the aim of those involved, and ask yourself:

Is someone aiming to harm someone else WITH his/her speech?

Is someone aiming to harm someone else FOR his/her speech?
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
Enlighten me.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier in the thread:

Harshaw said:
There are people who think free speech has no existence outside the First Amendment. But there's free speech, and THEN there's the First Amendment. The First Amendment does a specific thing - it prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech (among other things). But that's not the be-all, end all of free speech.

Free speech is a civic virtue. One's respect for free speech doesn't hinge on anything the government does. If YOU, that is, YOU try to shut someone up for what they say (in public, not in your living room), you don't respect or believe in free speech, full stop. Disagree and criticize until you fall over from exhaustion, that's all well and good. But going beyond that to trying to silence anyone - that just makes you a thug.
Click to expand...

Voltaire 101.

You (misplacedly) lectured me on the definition of "liberal" recently. What definition of "liberal" do you subscribe to which doesn't include a respect for free speech and other points of view? I'd really like to know.
 
Harshaw said:
As I said earlier in the thread:



Voltaire 101.

You (misplacedly) lectured me on the definition of "liberal" recently. What definition of "liberal" do you subscribe to which doesn't include a respect for free speech and other points of view? I'd really like to know.
Click to expand...

Oh, I respect free speech and woudn't do half those things I mentioned. I just can't see exactly where the line should be drawn so I'd rather not draw one.
Joe Blow is saying something I absolutely disagree with, say, intelligence is gender-specific. I talk over him, saying he should keep his yap shut if he's going to say things like that. You tell me I'm violating his free speech right. Who's being
censored in that scenario?
 
Grand Mal said:
Oh, I respect free speech and woudn't do half those things I mentioned. I just can't see exactly where the line should be drawn so I'd rather not draw one.
Joe Blow is saying something I absolutely disagree with, say, intelligence is gender-specific. I talk over him, saying he should keep his yap shut if he's going to say things like that. You tell me I'm violating his free speech right. Who's being
censored in that scenario?
Click to expand...

You're shutting him down -- not expressing disagreement, but actually shutting him down -- because you don't like what he's saying, so . . . yeah, that's pretty illiberal.
 
Harshaw said:
You're shutting him down -- not expressing disagreement, but actually shutting him down -- because you don't like what he's saying, so . . . yeah, that's pretty illiberal.
Click to expand...

Well, I disagree. Obviously. And if that makes me illiberal, c'est la vie. I've been called worse.
 
Grand Mal said:
Well, I disagree. Obviously. And if that makes me illiberal, c'est la vie. I've been called worse.
Click to expand...

It means you oppose freedom of speech. If you're cool with that, then that's on you. Don't complain when someone shuts you down.
 
apdst said:
It means you oppose freedom of speech. If you're cool with that, then that's on you. Don't complain when someone shuts you down.
Click to expand...

I don't think it does. I think I'm exercising my right to free speech when I tell someone with a crackpot opinion to shut his yap. He, of course, has the same right.
Where's the line, where does my right end? If I can't say, "Shut up!", can I say, "You need to shut up!"? Can I say, "You should shut up!", or, "It'd be better if you shut up now!"? "I wish you'd shut up!"? "Why don't you shut up?"? Do all those statements violate Joe Blow's right to free speech?
 
Grand Mal said:
I don't think it does. I think I'm exercising my right to free speech when I tell someone with a crackpot opinion to shut his yap. He, of course, has the same right.
Where's the line, where does my right end? If I can't say, "Shut up!", can I say, "You need to shut up!"? Can I say, "You should shut up!", or, "It'd be better if you shut up now!"? "I wish you'd shut up!"? "Why don't you shut up?"? Do all those statements violate Joe Blow's right to free speech?
Click to expand...

You're infringing on that person's civil rights. Your don't outweigh his rights.
 
apdst said:
You're infringing on that person's civil rights. Your don't outweigh his rights.
Click to expand...

Each one of those statements?
If I say to Joe, "I wish you'd shut up!" and you say to me, "You can't say that!", are you stepping on my rights?
 
apdst said:
You're infringing on that person's civil rights. Your don't outweigh his rights.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous! Yes, someone has the right to say shut up if they disagree. You have a right to continue on even if that person doesn't want to hear it, but they can verbally respond.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Ridiculous! Yes, someone has the right to say shut up if they disagree. You have a right to continue on even if that person doesn't want to hear it, but they can verbally respond.
Click to expand...

And then, that person can STFU. That's where it ends. If he doesn't want to hear it, he can ignore it, or leave.
 
Angel said:
Save insofar as speech is treasonous or incites to physical harm, it ought to be protected and, beyond cases of slander or libel, ought not to be actionable at all. That's it. All the rest we find ourselves mooting today under the rubric of freedom of speech is the upshot of Progressive distortion and must be exposed for the political rubbish it is.
Click to expand...

You misuse the quote- typical partisan tactic... :roll:

GOVERMENT officials shouldn't use laws or thugs to suppress free speech, but citizens are free to hold demonstrations and counter demonstrations as part of free speech. Speakers who engage in provocation endanger public safety and that is an issue. Trump gesturing and talking about giving protesters what they deserve is 'political rubbish'.

This isn't Progressive distortion, as both sides claim to embrace free speech- but the result of a highly charged political climate of today... :peace
 
3hYz8oQ.jpg

The Far Left Agenda...Out It Today!
 
Angel said:
3hYz8oQ.jpg

The Far Left Agenda...Out It Today!
Click to expand...

Again, I think you're absolutely off base here. The reality is that the extreme ends of both sides of the political spectrum have significant examples and instances where they have shown a desire to attempt to silence and suppress free speech. The notion of an agenda of censorship and suppression of expression is not a left/right issue, but rather one of authoritarianism, which is something that manifests itself as you move into the extremes of either end of the political spectrum.

Look at the reactions I already pointed to in this thread of people on the right calling for the silencing and punishing of speech by Kathy Griffin. Look at the examples I gave of those on the right attempting to censor music, video games, and art over time. Conservatives on college campuses have attempted to get speakers disinvited from being able to speak when the person was pro-abortion or was speaking positively of Palestine/negatively of Israel. There were calls and cries for Letterman to be reprimanded, boycotted, silenced, and/or fired for his jokes regarding the Palin family years ago.

Your focus on the "Left" as it relates to an assault on free speech suggests your care is far less about "free speech" and far more about simply attacking the "other side", viewing "free speech" simply as a tool rather than a concept you actually have any true care or reverence for.
 
Zyphlin said:
Again, I think you're absolutely off base here. The reality is that the extreme ends of both sides of the political spectrum have significant examples and instances where they have shown a desire to attempt to silence and suppress free speech. The notion of an agenda of censorship and suppression of expression is not a left/right issue, but rather one of authoritarianism, which is something that manifests itself as you move into the extremes of either end of the political spectrum.

Look at the reactions I already pointed to in this thread of people on the right calling for the silencing and punishing of speech by Kathy Griffin. Look at the examples I gave of those on the right attempting to censor music, video games, and art over time. Conservatives on college campuses have attempted to get speakers disinvited from being able to speak when the person was pro-abortion or was speaking positively of Palestine/negatively of Israel. There were calls and cries for Letterman to be reprimanded, boycotted, silenced, and/or fired for his jokes regarding the Palin family years ago.

Your focus on the "Left" as it relates to an assault on free speech suggests your care is far less about "free speech" and far more about simply attacking the "other side", viewing "free speech" simply as a tool rather than a concept you actually have any true care or reverence for.
Click to expand...

Bravo for not making it a partisan issue. My only question is.....isn't someone feeling the reaction (consequence) of his/her speech going to by nature have him/her think twice before making the same error? For example, a KKK member owns a coffee shop in town. He holds a meeting to burn a cross on his property, so the next day a half dozen people hold sign up not to give your money to a bigot. They shouldn't have that right? Let's say his business hurts enough he realizes he has a responsibility as a businessman in town not to display his hate so blatantly or it could impact his reputation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom