Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

What does "free speech" really mean?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Yet again you are failing to communicate coherently.
    You are the one who claimed that there are times to shut up is what free speech "really means". If that's now what you meant, it seems communicating clearly is your problem, not mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    That seems to be your problem then.
    Yet again you are failing to communicate coherently.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post



    Oatmeal with raisins.
    You belong on the dark side with the nonexistent one

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Not exactly my words. Nor was it my original comment to which I was referring.
    That seems to be your problem then.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    No, you were quite clear that you thought free speech "really means" knowing when to keep your mouth shut.
    Not exactly my words. Nor was it my original comment to which I was referring.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    I think we have encountered another of our communication breakdowns.
    No, you were quite clear that you thought free speech "really means" knowing when to keep your mouth shut.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    Did I say you were unethical or tactless (with regard to this thread...in most other things...)

    I merely said using your logic the right to gay marriage meant not getting married in some areas. Just as you think free speech means not voicing your opinion. Or perhaps the right to life means you need to recognize that you should hang yourself.
    I think we have encountered another of our communication breakdowns.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

    Concepts, like language, change over time. Hell, over time I've come a lot closer to liking you!
    Thanks for the warning. I'll try to be more careful. ;-)


    In fact, just the other day, I was thinking fondly of you as I was baking up some goodies.

    cookies.jpg

    From the original doc, for reference.
    .
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Initially, freedom of speech as recognized by the first amendment was little more than a restraint on the powers of Congress. More, the free speech clause was secondary to the clause creating freedom of religion, which included religious faiths which imposed restraints on the speech of their members. There were plenty of those in 18th century America.

    And it applied only to the Congress.

    Says here, some of the earliest colonies not only enforced church membership, that is, established a religion, but required church attendance as well. Early America was a hodge-podge of exclusive religious communities, in direct contradiction to the first amendment if the first amendment applied to local governments as well.

    Over time, that's changed, most notably in the quest to force state and local governments to respect rights granted to all citizens by Congress.

    More, I'd argue that self-government means we're restrained by the rules we agree to today, not the rules imposed by the framers. To wit, we have amended the constitution many times since its creation, and even amended those amendments. We're allowed to learn, to make mistakes while we're learning, and to recognize those mistakes and learn to do better.

    I love my country, warts and all, not least because I can add my voice to those who advocate for removing those warts.

    Our constitution, as amended and interpreted in the couple of centuries since it was first put together, goes beyond the framers' original intent by guaranteeing us the freedom to ask questions that not only might make our government officials uncomfortable, but might also make our neighbors uncomfortable, questions that make them choose what they'll tolerate and what they won't, and to dialogue our way into compromises we can all live with, based on what's possible today, knowing there will surely be more possibilities tomorrow.
    Amending, not via court decisions, is the way we should change and even clarify the Constitution.

    I'm almost to the point where I believe there should be a routine process whereby amendments are formally considered about every five years.


    If you're free to choose, it's up to you to choose wisely. Please think carefully before you answer.

    Chocolate chip or butter pecan?
    Oatmeal with raisins.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Sure you can. At least the inciting violence bit. Since it goes on to say

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    That it didn't include violent protests pretty much means that "inciting a riot with speech" would not be allowed either.
    "Fredo" Cuomo had that thrown back at him when he thought he could sneak one past. With his typical viewer it probably worked but unfortunately for him occasionally there is someone watching who's brain isn't the consistency of tapioca pudding.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

    You definitely can't prove that from the actual text of the First Amendment.
    Sure you can. At least the inciting violence bit. Since it goes on to say

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    That it didn't include violent protests pretty much means that "inciting a riot with speech" would not be allowed either.







    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
    Perhaps it's too reductionist, and it doesn't always work for me, but my principle is pretty simple: Think about how you'd treat your neighbor's dog, and try to treat your neighbor at least as well as that. When it works for me, I feel good about myself, and when it doesn't, I don't.
    Depends on the dog. Is your neighbor's dog a mild-mannered shih tzu or an aggressively trained bulldog - or a mixture of the two?

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

    Yesterday I learned that "getting clapped" does not mean what it appears to mean to my generation. As an ever more egregious example I began seeing a few years ago, it turns out "hooking up" no longer involves putting clothes on.

    These kids.

    They do it on purpose.
    I told a lawyer joke several years ago to several younger women who I was in charge of. By the sudden strange looks and at least one red face, I knew something went sideways. One of them then informed me that the word I used now had a sexual connotation and given the way I used it in the joke there was some confusion (not to mention, looking back, I'm not too sure many of them knew the regular definition for the word ).

    The thing is, back then I was still surprisingly in the know concerning current slang, underground trends and music etc., but I had definitely not heard that.

    These kids.




    But that is the regular evolution of the usage of language, not changing as a matter of political convenience, so it means what you want at any given time. That is positively Orwellian.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Words also have meanings and constantly changing those meanings every time it is to your advantage tends to make communication difficult if not impossible.
    Yesterday I learned that "getting clapped" does not mean what it appears to mean to my generation. As an ever more egregious example I began seeing a few years ago, it turns out "hooking up" no longer involves putting clothes on.

    These kids.

    They do it on purpose.

    Just a point of order but FWIU the Constitution wasn't in force during the Colonial period. In fact the First Amendment was designed in part to stop the sort of thing you brought up, so maybe you can explain what the point of this was. Thanks.
    The First Amendment didn't address the powers of states to enact laws, and while the Supremacy Clause in Article VI gave priority to federal law over state law when they came into conflict, it wasn't until 1803 that Marbury v. Madison created the precedent that allowed the Constitution to overrule federal law. Precedents forcing state laws to adhere to Constitutional Rights took quite a while longer.

    I don't have time right now to deep dive the Federalist Papers on this one, but from what I recall, they argued strongly and whenever possible for preserving local autonomy. I don't object to the principle behind ]your objection, but I don't think it's based on fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    You are droll. There is nothing incorrect, unethical, tactless, etc. with introducing the topic of gay marriage. I merely wished you well!
    Did I say you were unethical or tactless (with regard to this thread...in most other things...)

    I merely said using your logic the right to gay marriage meant not getting married in some areas. Just as you think free speech means not voicing your opinion. Or perhaps the right to life means you need to recognize that you should hang yourself.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

    I'm aware of a social media story that made the rounds a while back that featured Nancy Green, a woman hired to do demos on the product as part of a marketing campaign long after the product's debut, but there never was a real Aunt Jemima. The namesake for the brand was Old Aunt Jemima, a minstrel song, dating back to 1875.

    No it wasn't her real name (what a shocker and how unusual)

    From the African-American Registry (AAREG) website article "Nancy Green, the original 'Aunt Jemima'"


    ...Green was one of the organizers of the Olivet Baptist Church in Chicago. Her career allowed Green the financial freedom to become an activist and engage in antipoverty programs.

    She also was one of the first Black missionary workers. She used her stature as a spokesperson to become a leading advocate against poverty and in favor of equal rights for individuals in Chicago. Nancy Green maintained this job until a car crash in Chicago killed her on August 30, 1923.


    Some claim she was the first black female millionaire, but that is not the case. It is even doubtful she was a millionaire.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by rogue06, Today, 08:01 AM
1 response
9 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Sparko, Yesterday, 10:51 AM
7 responses
43 views
0 likes
Last Post seanD
by seanD
 
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:46 AM
13 responses
64 views
0 likes
Last Post Stoic
by Stoic
 
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 06:44 AM
6 responses
39 views
0 likes
Last Post CivilDiscourse  
Started by Gondwanaland, 06-13-2021, 10:55 AM
2 responses
56 views
0 likes
Last Post kccd
by kccd
 
Working...
X