Free speech, but only if you agree with me....

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Free speech for whom?



I was reading the newspaper the other day and saw this opinion piece. It mentions that a chill wind does blow in this country with regard to free speech, but only if you happen to hold conservative viewpoints. The left will declare patriotically that to disagree and dissent is the fullest form of being American. You are showing patriotism when you show you care enough to dissent.



But what about for folks on the right? Well organized protests, calls to resign and step down, call it hate-speech and criminalize it. You can burn the flag but don't judge express disapproval with some aspect of personal liberty (drug-use, sexuality, etc.) that we declare to be sacrosanct.



Is this hypocracy? Is it wrong to declare that gay rights activists should be able to hold parades declaring what they consider to be a proper sexual lifestyle while declaring that Santorum should step down for declaring what he considers to be a proper sexual lifestyle?



Should Susan Sarandon declare that free speech is being restricted when she isn't invited to Cooperstown while she led protests to remove Dr. Laura's show off the air?



What do you think?



Nick
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 37
    First, Get Informed.



  • Reply 2 of 37
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    People around here get their panties in a wad when an actor speaks out at the Oscars. The actor is expression their own opinion.



    When a national politician speaks out, they're representing our nation.



    I don't know of many examples of the 'left' around here, or anywhere, trying to stop the pro-war actors from speeking out. No one says Charleton Heston should shut up.



    I do think when a politician does something wrong, people should speak out.



    My brain can't be very clear right now. Sorry.
  • Reply 3 of 37
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce

    First, Get Informed.







    I don't see how that does anything but prove my point. Robbins is calling the president of the hall of fame everything in the book because they disagree. He also says that in disagreeing and not deciding to screen a movie, that he is eliminating Robbons right to free speech. How does that make any sense. I suppose if I didn't play Robbins in my DVD player then I am restricting his constitutional rights?



    * You are using what power you have to infringe upon my rights to free speech and by taking this action hope to intimidate the millions of others that disagree with our president.



    * You invoke patriotism and use words like freedom in an attempt to intimidate and bully. In doing so, you dishonor the words patriotism and freedom and dishonor the men and women who have fought wars to keep this nation a place where one can freely express one's opinion without fear of reprisal or punishment.



    * Your subservience to your friends in the administration is embarrassing to baseball and by engaging in this enterprise you show that you belong with other cowards and ideologues in the Hall of Infamy and Shame.



    (color and bullets are for BRussell )



    Santorum speaks about a court case and you and others declare he should step down from leadership not because he did something unethical or illegal, but because he held a perspective.



    Nick
  • Reply 4 of 37
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce

    First, Get Informed.







    And you think your choice of reading material is going to do it?
  • Reply 5 of 37
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    People around here get their panties in a wad when an actor speaks out at the Oscars. The actor is expression their own opinion.



    When a national politician speaks out, they're representing our nation.



    I don't know of many examples of the 'left' around here, or anywhere, trying to stop the pro-war actors from speeking out. No one says Charleton Heston should shut up.



    I do think when a politician does something wrong, people should speak out.



    My brain can't be very clear right now. Sorry.




    Free speech is free speech. It should not be restricted if you are an actor, and especially if you are not a politician because they are in charge of insuring our future right to free speech.



    The resultant actions from speech are the same. If Santorum doesn't match your opinions and you live in Pennsylvania, then don't vote for him. Likewise I am free to not purchase movies from Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and associated company.



    However the critics of Santorum didn't say that they would target him in the next election. That would have sat just fine with my because elections are about ideas. Rather they believed he should lose his leadership job because of his speech.



    Likewise if I decide not to view Robbins movies or even purchase them. I am "blacklisting them" and there is "a chill wind" blowing through the nation.



    Anyone should be free to speak what they want without fear of repurcussion from the government. That doesn't mean there are no repurcussions from everyone else though.



    Nick
  • Reply 6 of 37
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I am "blacklisting them" and there is "a chill wind" blowing through the nation.





    it really depends on where you live... a liberal in the bible belt cant go out on the street and stand on a soap box and preach without fear of being harassed but a religious fanatic (whose views may not really follow christian tenets) can and does...



    what i think we are seeing is more of the desire of both groups to silence the other groups, its a general trend and not one that is nation wide one direction or the other, it is impolitic and its occuring more often because in part the nature of the debate, the firm lack of middle ground, the my way or the high way... there are rarely concessions now...



    its sad that the desire and tendency to silence anyone exists in this nation but that is what you get when differences and not similarities are on everyones mind...
  • Reply 7 of 37
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates

    And you think your choice of reading material is going to do it?







    Yeah, but the original letters are there for you to make your own inferences.
  • Reply 8 of 37
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    it really depends on where you live... a liberal in the bible belt cant go out on the street and stand on a soap box and preach without fear of being harassed but a religious fanatic (whose views may not really follow christian tenets) can and does...



    what i think we are seeing is more of the desire of both groups to silence the other groups, its a general trend and not one that is nation wide one direction or the other, it is impolitic and its occuring more often because in part the nature of the debate, the firm lack of middle ground, the my way or the high way... there are rarely concessions now...



    its sad that the desire and tendency to silence anyone exists in this nation but that is what you get when differences and not similarities are on everyones mind...




    But the constitution doesn't guarantee you freedom from opposition. If they wanted to shout down someone you can. The government just can't come and arrest you for holding your position.



    Likewise I support the right of the various gay and lesbian groups to demonstrate against the Dr. Laura show when it was on. However was the fact that they wanted her show off the air a "chill wind" and entertainer blacklisting?



    I do agree that there is little political give and little middle ground.



    Nick
  • Reply 9 of 37
    naderfannaderfan Posts: 156member
    The hardest thing about free speech is that it means you have to let people say things that you disagree with from the depths of your being. I once saw an article in the Onion with the headline "ACLU Defends Nazi's Right to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters." It was funny, but there's also a grain of truth to it. In order to claim that we do have free speech, we must allow the minority to voice their views. However, the great thing is that we also have the freedom to protest right back.
  • Reply 10 of 37
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I think the sooner both sides stop whining about their free speech being denied when someone doesn't give them a handjob for having such a wonderful opinion the better off we'll be.



    They both want to play the victim card even though it's not in their deck.
  • Reply 11 of 37
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    I think the sooner both sides stop whining about their free speech being denied when someone doesn't give them a handjob for having such a wonderful opinion the better off we'll be.



    They both want to play the victim card even though it's not in their deck.




    Yes but do you support someone's right to speak publically while receiving a handjob from someone who agrees with their opinion?



    I thought....Tim's...speech....on CSPAN... was...a ...bit...halting....





    Nick
  • Reply 12 of 37
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Susan was under the podium. I saw a picture of it in Newsweek.
  • Reply 13 of 37
    the generalthe general Posts: 649member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce

    First, Get Informed.







    So, its ok for Tim Robbins to call someone a coward if the guy doesnt want em there? thats real mature, maybe the guy should respond back and just say "a-hole!"?





  • Reply 14 of 37
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    free speech = good (protected)

    hate speech = bad (punishable)



    robbins and sarandon can criticize and quote facts, and suggest the president is a fool or his policies are misguided, but it wouldn't be considered hate speech.



    santorum has made comments about homosexuals (and polygamists) that would be considered hate speech in several legislative jurisdictions.
  • Reply 15 of 37
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by curiousuburb

    free speech = good (protected)

    hate speech = bad (punishable)



    robbins and sarandon can criticize and quote facts, and suggest the president is a fool or his policies are misguided, but it wouldn't be considered hate speech.



    santorum has made comments about homosexuals (and polygamists) that would be considered hate speech in several legislative jurisdictions.




    Try again...



    More like



    speech you agree with = free (protected)

    speech you disagree with = hate (punishable)



    Santorum did not advocate any sort of violence against homosexuals. That is really the point that I would like to get across. By saying that if you discuss certain issues, it becomes "hate" then that is a)Political correctness poising as thinking and b) restricting speech of certain groups. Hate means you are advocating harm. Stating a position and an opinion does not = harm. Making a direct threat is what I would consider hateful.



    Speech does not equal actions and that is why free speech is so important.



    Nick
  • Reply 16 of 37
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Try again...



    More like



    speech you agree with = free (protected)

    speech you disagree with = hate (punishable)



    Santorum did not advocate any sort of violence against homosexuals. That is really the point that I would like to get across. By saying that if you discuss certain issues, it becomes "hate" then that is a)Political correctness poising as thinking and b) restricting speech of certain groups. Hate means you are advocating harm. Stating a position and an opinion does not = harm. Making a direct threat is what I would consider hateful.



    Speech does not equal actions and that is why free speech is so important.



    Nick




    What the hell is going on here? Is this some sort of agree-fest going on between us now?
  • Reply 17 of 37
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    What the hell is going on here? Is this some sort of agree-fest going on between us now?



    Don't worry 10 posts from now you'll say "and here's where we part"



    Jajajajajaaa (I'm laughing in Spanish)



    We do agree quite a bit on some issues BR, that is okay though last time I checked.



    Nick
  • Reply 18 of 37
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Free speech is free speech. It should not be restricted if you are an actor, and especially if you are not a politician...



    No politician's speech is being restricted.



    If a politician speeks out, he should be more loudly criticized than an actor though. That's simply because a federal politician, regardless of who voted for him or her, is representing the nation. They should expect loud criticism.
  • Reply 19 of 37
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    What the hell is going on here? Is this some sort of agree-fest going on between us now?



    How could someone like you EVER agree with a term like "Political Correctness?"
  • Reply 20 of 37
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce

    How could someone like you EVER agree with a term like "Political Correctness?"



    I'm not a *****. You also might want to reread what I agreed with.
Sign In or Register to comment.