Is Free Speech Really What We Want?

The language that 'tears at society' is divisive, misleading, hatefully-inflammatory rhetoric. No one decides what tears at society, but we can tell who does the tearing by the language they use.

 

Good question. Probably for the same reason that the sand-in-the-v@g Right mewls whenever one of their own comes to the realization that free speech does not mean freedom of repercussion for that speech. "OH MY GOD!!!!! That woman was fired for referring to Michelle Obama as a gorilla!!! How terrible and unfair!!!!".

 

There are consequences for free speech. ask the dude who berated a chik fil a employee.

 

Yeah, that would make sense except for the fact that he is the most thin-skinned little b1ch out there, constantly mewling and demanding apologies for his little feelers getting hurt.

 

1. Fair

2. Honestly, I don't see a need to change anything there. Promoting riots by driving narratives in the media a certain way definitely fits the definition of inciting a riot.

3 & 4. Trump himself complained that the media incited violence and called for some arrests.

 

We're talking about two different types of speech. Name calling and talking slick is one thing. Encouraging harm and destruction to others is another. Both are offensive, but one is only meant to ensure harm and the other is simple slick talk. Hate speech falls under the encouraging of harm, yet it is protected.

 

I have no case law to cite but I am pretty certain the exemption applies only to actual working politicians, enough that they can be seen as public figures. Even then it is only an informal thing based mainly on the 'absence of malice' stipulation. Oh, and it isn't libel to call someone a liberal (yet) but it is to call someone a degenerate.

 

Encouraging harm to an individual is assault and a crime. Encouraging harm to a group is supposedly protected, but if someone was to provably suffer immediate harm as a result of speech encouraging harm to their group then it might be argued that the speech causing it was an assault on that individual in actual fact. I don't know how good a criminal case could be made but as a matter of equity it might fly LAWYERS, LAWYERS

 

We tend to KNOW what 'buttons' to push to enrage people, culturally, socially, personally ...etc.

Does anyone think that this forum itself has such restrictions and moderation for nothing? (If so, think again.)

Not that I want/seek to freakin' label ALL things as being 'hate' per se... but it's to say that if you are out here in public or society-at-large to stir up dissension, strife, anger, fear or lead people to various types of negative incitement... then there can and should be a point where we (as a society) question and mitigate that.

I probably won't be alive in 50 years... but I am certain, that there will be NO society or nation where one will be allowed to say whatever they may wish to; there will always be things you cannot express without consequences or sanctions. And dependent upon the things that have happened to that point, what you can and cannot say will be determined accordingly.

The "rules" as to what can or cannot be said publicly to an audience or an individual really isn't about "who" makes that decision... is is and always will be about what "effect" those words will likely have.

My brother learned early, that what he and his buddy were joking about in an airport... would get them interrogated long enough to almost miss their flight. They thought it was 'funny' to just joke openly about it... but the authorities did not see the humor; to them, it was a literal threat. And there are MANY things deemed to be problematic when people say them. It's not about WHO decides what shouldn't be said, it is primarily about WHY things should not be said.

At my age, I really DO know how to stir up serious anger/fear in many settings; I could do it if that were my purpose. And I'm also pretty sure I'd be sued or arrested for the trouble I caused. Bottom line:

The First Amendment DOES NOT give people the right to say whatever they wish; and it never has been about that per se.

Hate speech... WHATEVER!! If you are making trouble in certain serious ways, either the people or society with its laws will eventually come to 'check' things.

In fact, ANY Constitutional right one might abuse to the point of hindering or harming the lives of other citizens... can and likely will be sanctioned or punished in some way. In other words... NO, people cannot just say whatever they wish; there can or will be consequences.

 

Not a good argument for arresting journalists.
It is a good argument for stopping riots fast. Which is very easy. Riots only occur when enabled by government/police.

 

It might have been libel to call someone a degenerate in the past. It might be considered a compliment now.

Defense counsel: When you called Jones a "degenerate liberal" what were you trying to say.

Defendant: Well - you know - like I meant that he was a way cool liberal degenerate - you know - like in a good way.

Case closed.

 

course the right doesn't really understand what free speech is

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/palin-criticism-threatens_n_139729.html

"Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said."

.

 

Because the Progressive Socialist Marxist Left is the sole proprietor of goodness and to speak in a manner not acceptable to them is indicates evil. Evil must be attacked.

 

Yes, you are correct. He was talking about f------ his girlfriend and eating out her p-----. Then he wanted anal sex with her. He was going to stick his p---- up her poop hole until she begged him to stop. He bragged about this in front of my kids. I told him to shut up or I'd beat his ass.

You have a problem with that? If so, you've got some real problems. I wouldn't want you as my father.

 

So you believe that honest criticism and use real factual information to back it up is hateful and should be censored?

 

First Amendment protection of free speech only applies to protected minorities.

 

Just so the people on the forum can see textbook case of how liberals debate their point.
Instead of presenting a logical counter-argument, Texas Republican resorts to insulting me and attempting to appeal to emotion.... despite not knowing one iota about me before hand.

You can try to defend your authoritarian tendencies as much as you like.... just don't pretend you are atop some moral high-ground.

Despite the fact that both parties are in a public space with no rules on speech (yet)....
Despite the fact that there are other options that you could take to remedy your situation...
You feel as though those guys should comply with what you want... else physical harm is justified towards them.

I've seen enough SJW videos on youtube to know that mentality leads to completely unwarranted altercations

Like I said pretty much sums up this entire thread.

 

And what if the flag burner has a change of heart? He later decides that he loves his country, but whenever you google his name, his flag burning comes up?

 

I'm not a liberal.

Like I said, I thank God you're not my father.

 

just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them a liberal

 

It makes them a NAZI or maybe a racist..

 

Find me the quote where I said you were a liberal.... if you actually read it, I said this is how liberals debate their point - with insults and appeals to emotion instead of facts.

And you're still doing it.

And you still haven't presented an argument to justify why physical harm is warranted with free speech in the public sphere.
Walk-away, Ignore, Compromise, Debate.... just some of the tools you learn in life to interact in the public sphere - tools you teach your kids.

Let us hope your children don't turn out to be snowflakes that believes the world revolves around them - like many of these SJW protesters we have seen as of late.

Oh and that goes for you too FreshAir

 

nor does it mean that there is no price to be paid for stupid ideas or thoughts you have expressed on line.

 

no re-read it, that is what palin thought, she wanted to censor those criticizing her speech

.

 

not that either, why so many republicans think everything is black and white is beyond me... there is much gray in the world

- - - Updated - - -

agree... as long as it's not the government doing it