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

Leftists Do Hate Free Speech

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

    I think that perhaps misrepresents cause and effect. Conservatives regularly initiate hostilities against immigrants and members of the LGBTQ+ community in flagrant abuses of the right to free speech. Many of these attempts at lawmaking by more liberal minded folk are attempts to push back against such abuses.
    Please define and give examples.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Federalist.

    Nationalist Christian.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

    Proud member of the this space left blank community.

    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

    Justice for Matthew Perna!

    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

      I already admitted that some people will use the right to freedom of speech as an excuse for destructive behavior, but you miss the point that many of the "flagrant abuses of the right to free speech" are people genuinely speaking about something they see as dangerous and/or evil. Barring things like slander and explicit calls to violence, freedom of speech is not to be infringed, because there is too much of a danger to our society as a whole when you start to try and restrict speech beyond that. You also miss the fact that just as some abuse their right to free speech some people calling for such restrictions on free speech also do so under false pretenses, and with the goal of silencing their opposition. We also live in a time where the US government is no longer the only large entity with the kind of power that needs to be kept in check by freedom of speech. Corporations, ideologies, and even foreign governments now have more power and influence than ever due to the rapid spread of information, and the overwhelming amount of it. You have groups like the World Economic Forum that want to control humanity on a global scale, and even detail many of their plans to reach that goal. Dividing people, actively inducing depression*, and silencing opposition are some of their tools, and they have been remarkably successful. Things like the ESG, and China's social credit score have also been quite successful in obtaining compliance from those they are imposed upon.

      With regards to your link under their own model of a social contract, restricting freedom of speech would be tyrannical, because for a long time most people are not in favor of it even when they disagree with people they dislike, at least in the US. Nor do you address the abuses from the side you deem to be the "oppressed". By accepting intersectionality and the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy you are enabling the continuation of the cycle of abuse on a global scale. Even founder of the ACLU Roger Ballwin understood what I'm saying “In order to defend the people, you have to defend the people you hate”. The moment you stop defending the rights of those you disagree with everyone loses.

      Your post is a red herring anyway, as it just sidesteps the problem with imposing restrictions like that to begin with. Freedom of speech is foundational to a free society. If you try to remove, or otherwise damage that right, then the entire edifice collapses in on itself. Much of the time when people call for restrictions on rights "for the public good" you end up with tyrants or other nefarious groups taking control because the people no longer have the tools to prevent them from rising to power.

      *Through demoralization, medications, and other means on a global scale. You might want to check who the members of the WEF are, it's rather eye opening to see who belongs to such a fiendish organization.
      My first point was that what the founding fathers had in mind wrt free speech is different from what we think of as free speech now. My mistake was not filling out more completely how it was different. My second apologizes for the deficiency and then begins filling in the gaps.

      If you believe that tHe founding fathers were wrong and we've now corrected that mistake, that is fine. But the reality is there are linits on free speech still recognized by the supreme court, and that it is effectively impossible for any civilized society to endure unbridled free speech.

      In a way, it is a paradox. To be a free people, we need free speech for many reasons, but then again, when treated as a right without limits, it is also very, very destructive. The founding fathers believed that balance could be found by allowing the people themselves to define those limits through their elected legislature.


      Personally I do not believe free speech is a right to abuse others, or a right to propagate lies unhindered. But I recognize it is tricky to find ways to hinder the destructive side without also hindering the good.

      jim
      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-03-2022, 04:03 PM.
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        The founding fathers believed that balance could be found by allowing the people themselves to define those limits through their elected legislature.
        The 1A pretty much contradicts that idea entirely.

        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.
        I.E. Congress (The elected legislature) CANNOT abridge free speech

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

          The 1A pretty much contradicts that idea entirely.



          I.E. Congress (The elected legislature) CANNOT abridge free speech
          It would appear they did so up until the Supreme court decided it was not ok, and further, that the founding fathers who wrote the amendment did not intend for the right to free speech to be handled as we now do.

          personally, im not of the same absolutist mindset about it as you and c123 seem to be. Civilization needs restrictions on speech, and on freedom for that matter, to survive.

          But I'm treading on orthodoxy, so I don't necessarily expect a rational conversation on this issue to be possible.
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

            My first point was that what the founding fathers had in mind wrt free speech is different from what we think of as free speech now. My mistake was not filling out more completely how it was different. My second apologizes for the deficiency and then begins filling in the gaps.
            It's not particularly different at the core, just slightly different in application. Even under the supposed difference of a "social contract" you still end up with the same problems with respect to restricting free speech.

            If you believe that tHe founding fathers were wrong and we've now corrected that mistake, that is fine. But the reality is there are linits on free speech still recognized by the supreme court, and that it is effectively impossible for any civilized society to endure unbridled free speech.
            No one is infallible, and we all have blind spots The Founding Fathers were right in general with regards to free speech. The few changes made over the years have been minor tweaks rather than anything major. Stuff that used to be restricted due to being "obscene" for example. The concept at its core is still the same, and is still needed for the same reasons. Them making laws that restrict things in ways counter to their stated intentions doesn't negate those intentions.

            In a way, it is a paradox. To be a free people, we need free speech for many reasons, but then again, when treated as a right without limits, it is also very, very destructive. The founding fathers believed that balance could be found by allowing the people themselves to define those limits through their elected legislature.
            Pretty much no one is a free speech absolutist, so I don't know why this is brought up so much. No one's saying it's okay for people to explicitly call for violence against others, inciting riots, or threatening people*. The only people I know of who do say things like that are fine tend to be trolls trying to get a reaction.

            None of this at all refutes my points, in fact it just reinforces them.

            Personally I do not believe free speech is a right to abuse others, or a right to propagate lies unhindered. But I recognize it is tricky to find ways to hinder the destructive side without also hindering the good.

            jim
            Who gets to decide what counts as "abuse"? Who gets to determine which information is "lies"? The former is already shaky in definition, but the latter is especially difficult to prove and trying to enforce it is downright dangerous. Many of the people on all sides of an issue believe they are telling the truth, and that includes a lot of people you disagree with. We see this with the Gender Identity movement claiming that not calling people by their preferred pronouns is "abuse", but it can just as easily be seen as being asked to lie to someone. I won't deny Gender Dysphoria is a real thing, but the Gender Identity movement is something separate entirely and has some major negative consequences for society at large, and for people suffering from Gender Dysphoria and have transitioned**.

            I don't think people should be abusive to each other, or mean, or nasty, but as long as they are not breaking the law and harming people directly they have the right to be a jerk. As long as people aren't lying under oath in the courtroom they technically have the right to lie too. It's a crappy thing to do in the cast majority of cases, but they have that right.

            *Both sides engage in death threats. Just recently Chris Pratt is getting death threats for being in the Super Mario Bros. movie from SJW types. Yes, it's a real thing, and yes it's stupid.

            **People without Gender Dysphoria started calling themselves "trans", and now they are belittling people with Gender Dysphoria for trying to pass as the opposite sex. That's kind of the whole point of transitioning in the first place, and now they are being told they are bad for wanting to do that by such people. There are also many people who have transitioned and regret it because the underlying cause was never addressed. They were pushed so quickly into "Gender Affirming Care" that they didn't find out the real issue until it was too late.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

              It would appear they did so up until the Supreme court decided it was not ok, and further, that the founding fathers who wrote the amendment did not intend for the right to free speech to be handled as we now do.

              personally, im not of the same absolutist mindset about it as you and c123 seem to be. Civilization needs restrictions on speech, and on freedom for that matter, to survive.

              But I'm treading on orthodoxy, so I don't necessarily expect a rational conversation on this issue to be possible.
              The largest key is trusting the censors.

              Would you trust a Trump Administration to determine what speech is and is not allowed?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                The largest key is trusting the censors.

                Would you trust a Trump Administration to determine what speech is and is not allowed?
                No, of course not

                But then again, this is why the power to censor was ostensibly not in the governments hands, but the people's.

                It's not a trivial problem to solve.

                And it may not have a solution in the perfect sense.
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                  It would appear they did so up until the Supreme court decided it was not ok, and further, that the founding fathers who wrote the amendment did not intend for the right to free speech to be handled as we now do.

                  personally, im not of the same absolutist mindset about it as you and c123 seem to be. Civilization needs restrictions on speech, and on freedom for that matter, to survive.

                  But I'm treading on orthodoxy, so I don't necessarily expect a rational conversation on this issue to be possible.
                  Poison the well much?

                  Also, you've clearly not dealt with an actual free speech absolutist. However, because I know the dangers of restricting free speech I'll still defend their right to say such nonsense.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                    No, of course not

                    But then again, this is why the power to censor was ostensibly not in the governments hands, but the people's.

                    It's not a trivial problem to solve.

                    And it may not have a solution in the perfect sense.
                    The bolded is at odds with your assertion that it would be the legislature that made that decision. (Again, explicitly excluded by the 1A).

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                      The bolded is at odds with your assertion that it would be the legislature that made that decision. (Again, explicitly excluded by the 1A).
                      We, the people, ...

                      Hence the adjective 'ostensibly'
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                        Poison the well much?
                        only when necessary ....

                        Also, you've clearly not dealt with an actual free speech absolutist. However, because I know the dangers of restricting free speech I'll still defend their right to say such nonsense.
                        My goal was to establish only that the current treatment of free speech is different from, and perhaps more able to be abused by hostile or hateful individuals, than what was originally envisioned.
                        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                          We, the people, ...

                          Hence the adjective 'ostensibly'
                          The legislature is anything BUT 'ostensibly'

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                            only when necessary ....
                            It certainly wasn't necessary here, and I'd argue it's never necessary.

                            My goal was to establish only that the current treatment of free speech is different from, and perhaps more able to be abused by hostile or hateful individuals, than what was originally envisioned.
                            The only real difference now is that anyone and everyone can share their thoughts on a worldwide scale, and at drastically higher speeds. It's a difference in degree, and not in kind. The consequences for restricting said speech has the same effects, it's just much more wide reaching now than ever. So if anything it is more important than ever to make sure freedom of speech is protected. We are already seeing many of the horrible consequences of such legislative, and other censoring powers in other Western countries. It's stuff straight out of 1984.

                            You also have to remember that not every thing you dislike being said is truly abuse, or lies/misinformation. That goes for stuff you view as hateful too. Silencing these people is like plugging up a boiling tea kettle. Without that release valve you get even more volatile results than that irritating whistling. Most of the truly terrible things people say are already illegal, such as death threats and inciting violence.

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                            16 responses
                            119 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post One Bad Pig  
                            Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                            53 responses
                            319 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Mountain Man  
                            Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                            25 responses
                            111 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post rogue06
                            by rogue06
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                            33 responses
                            196 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Roy
                            by Roy
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                            84 responses
                            360 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post JimL
                            by JimL
                             
                            Working...
                            X