Freedom of speech

[Argus]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Its not ok with me, any more than the girl using a speaker to prevent a man talking was ok with me.  But its not a violation of the "right to free speech".   

If you saw that video then you saw that another girl came over and broke her speaker. You can call it whatever you want to but if we allow people to block other people's speech the result will be violence. Discussion, as that guy said, is the alternative to violence.

[dialamah]

16 minutes ago, Argus said:

If you saw that video then you saw that another girl came over and broke her speaker. You can call it whatever you want to but if we allow people to block other people's speech the result will be violence. Discussion, as that guy said, is the alternative to violence.

I agree that what she was doing was stupid and counter-productive and resulted in her speaker being broken.  But none of that has anything to do with violating someone's right to free speech, since that right is only in relation to the government preventing citizens from speaking out against the government.

[Bonam]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Only the government can violate someone's right to free speech.  Objecting and protesting are just as much a right of free speech as giving a presentation.

I agree that becoming physical as part of one's protesting is wrong, and that entrances should not be blocked.  But anything up to that point is acceptable, in my opinion.  If a venue decides to cancel an event due to non-violent protest, that is their right as well.

If the venue receives public (government) funding, then I think the venue blocking certain kinds of speech but not others constitutes a violation of free speech rights. Universities receive public funding. 

[betsy]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Only the government can violate someone's right to free speech.

 

Not necessarily. 

If someone intentionally drowns you out - as in a rally - they're actually trying to prevent you from exercising your right.  Your right to speech is your right to voice out an opinion to someone! 

Surely no one intends to give a speech with no one around?

 

Quote

Objecting and protesting are just as much a right of free speech as giving a presentation.

Objecting and protesting are fine....but not when you intentionally shut down people from being heard.

Edited September 19, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

14 hours ago, Grand Mal said:

The right to free speech is misunderstood by some people. It means the government can't censor you. It doesn't mean everybody needs to allow you to say what you think.

Depends where you are.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, Grand Mal said:

Your first amendment rights begin and end with the words, "Congress shall make no laws...". The first amendment does not require anyone to tolerate loathsome ideas, it just says the government can't censor you.

 

Not true....loathsome ideas are protected for public distribution, especially printed media.   As an example, courts in the U.S. have found that it is a violation of constitutional rights to prevent distribution of newpapers, flyers, billboards, etc. in civil suits between private parties.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Grand Mal said:

Your first amendment rights begin and end with the words, "Congress shall make no laws...". The first amendment does not require anyone to tolerate loathsome ideas, it just says the government can't censor you.

Surely it depends on what you mean by tolerate.  If I find your views on this issue loathsome, how far am I entitled to go to prevent you expressing them?

[Grand Mal]

7 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Surely it depends on what you mean by tolerate.  If I find your views on this issue loathsome, how far am I entitled to go to prevent you expressing them?

Far as the law allows. Same as everything else in society.

[jacee]

On 19/09/2017 at 6:11 PM, bcsapper said:

Surely it depends on what you mean by tolerate.  If I find your views on this issue loathsome, how far am I entitled to go to prevent you expressing them?

Depends ...

If he's a Nazi... 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

Depends ...

If he's a Nazi... 

No, it doesn't. Unless one is a hypocrite. 

Edit>. Actually, if you're okay with hurting people if you don't like their opinions, and don't care if others do so, then you're not a hypocrite. Sorry, I spoke too quickly. 

Edited September 22, 2017 by bcsapper

[Argus]

14 hours ago, bcsapper said:

No, it doesn't. Unless one is a hypocrite. 

Edit>. Actually, if you're okay with hurting people if you don't like their opinions, and don't care if others do so, then you're not a hypocrite. Sorry, I spoke too quickly. 

I'm pretty sure she's not okay with people hurting her...

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

I'm pretty sure she's not okay with people hurting her...

Well exactly.  Punching people who have an opinion one doesn't like is fine until reciprocity rears its ugly head.

[DogOnPorch]

21 hours ago, jacee said:

Depends ...

If he's a Nazi... 

 

Or she.....

[jacee]

22 hours ago, bcsapper said:

No, it doesn't. Unless one is a hypocrite. 

Edit>. Actually, if you're okay with hurting people if you don't like their opinions, and don't care if others do so, then you're not a hypocrite. Sorry, I spoke too quickly. 

Hurt? Nobody said hurt but you.

If he's a Nazi, you do shut him up.

Easiest way is to drown him out.

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, jacee said:

Hurt? Nobody said hurt but you.

If he's a Nazi, you do shut him up.

Easiest way is to drown him out.

 

Or her....

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, jacee said:

Hurt? Nobody said hurt but you.

If he's a Nazi, you do shut him up.

Easiest way is to drown him out.

Yes, of course.  Same with anyone.

[hot enough]

On 6/4/2017 at 3:34 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

In Canada, people like Ezra Levant get imprisoned or deported for "freedom of speech"

You don't believe in freedom of speech at all, you only believe in freedom of US propaganda.

[Hal 9000]

On 9/22/2017 at 5:24 PM, jacee said:

Hurt? Nobody said hurt but you.

If he's a Nazi, you do shut him up.

Easiest way is to drown him out.

So, if you can claim, as Antifa does, that everyone who you disagree with is a Nazi, then you have what have today.  How convienient!

[DogOnPorch]

4 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

So, if you can claim, as Antifa does, that everyone who you disagree with is a Nazi, then you have what have today.  How convienient!

 

You forgot racist.

[Michael Hardner]

15 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

So, if you can claim, as Antifa does, that everyone who you disagree with is a Nazi, then you have what have today.  How convienient!

Who does Antifa disagree with, other than Nazis ?  Where are the principles/values/goals of Antifa published ?

It strikes me that they, like alt-right, are an amorphous group, that's difficult to define.  As such, the temptation is for people to ascribe blame for a single member of the group to the group as a whole.  There are certainly groups within Antifa who are well-formed, and have rules about non-violence and so on.  I imagine it's the same for alt-right.

But when you aggregate them together, it clouds the issue.  You can then say that both groups are violent and unreasonable. 

[Hal 9000]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Who does Antifa disagree with, other than Nazis ?  Where are the principles/values/goals of Antifa published ?

It strikes me that they, like alt-right, are an amorphous group, that's difficult to define.  As such, the temptation is for people to ascribe blame for a single member of the group to the group as a whole.  There are certainly groups within Antifa who are well-formed, and have rules about non-violence and so on.  I imagine it's the same for alt-right.

But when you aggregate them together, it clouds the issue.  You can then say that both groups are violent and unreasonable. 

It seems that a Nazi is anything that the left decides is Nazi.  Even though there has been just one rally that involved only a couple hundred "Nazis", Antifa has determined that any dissenting viewpoints are Nazi, White Nationalist and/or fascist (obviously), not to mention anyone who voted for or supports Donald Trump.  IOW, people like jacee, in all her wisdom, fully support the end of free speech if it's at odds with her own beliefs.

P.S - No, you can't say "both groups are violent and unreasonable"....just ask Donald Trump. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

Antifa has determined that any dissenting viewpoints are Nazi, White Nationalist and/or fascist (obviously), not to mention anyone who voted for or supports Donald Trump. 

Do you  have a cite on that ?

[DogOnPorch]

A cite for an opinion....?

 

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Who does Antifa disagree with, other than Nazis ?  Where are the principles/values/goals of Antifa published ?

It strikes me that they, like alt-right, are an amorphous group, that's difficult to define.  As such, the temptation is for people to ascribe blame for a single member of the group to the group as a whole.  There are certainly groups within Antifa who are well-formed, and have rules about non-violence and so on.  I imagine it's the same for alt-right.

Even when they're not physically attacking people they're so shrill and unpleasant they make me side with Trump supporters, and that ought to be a crime in itself.

Would you like to point out the value in this protest by Antifa? I'd really like to hear how you think they're accomplishing anything but making the cops wish they really WERE in a police state so they cold kick the crap out of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rtUmETvXks&t=321s

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Would you like to point out the value in this protest by Antifa?

I watched a few minutes.  I didn't see any 'value' but maybe they see value in it.  Maybe there is value.  Who knows ?