Know Someone Over 50 Making a Difference? Nominate Them for the AARP Purpose Prize

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

221 Views
Message 91 of 270

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:
YOUR version of free speech. As i posted before, I prefer the way University of Michigan handles it with participation of all sides of free speech.

Good ol U of M has a better free speech policy than any other University.
"Students protesting at the University of Michigan disrupted about half of the speech delivered by libertarian social scientist Charles Murray on campus last night. After the speech, a public relations representative of the university called the protests "consistent with a long-established university policy regarding freedom of speech and artistic expression."

If I understand the concept, you think that the denial of free speech is free speech.


are you against the students right to free speech? If i understand your loaded question, you think the overwhelming number of students at the event should be denied theirs.


No trick question, just a statement of fact. You seem to think that the denial of free speech by some is free speech.

 

As to the "overwhelming number of students at the event" - if they do not want to hear the speaker, why are they at the event? Obviously to deny the speaker his free speech rights as well as to deny the rights of those who do want to hear him.

Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

233 Views
Message 92 of 270

Conservatives love free speech unless it's against something they support.  Like their fascist leader, they would fire GQ's "Citizen of the Year", Colin Kaepernick, for his exercising his right to "free speech".


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

231 Views
Message 93 of 270

rk9152 wrote:

Olderscout66 wrote:

SCOTUS long ago established that not all speech is protected. "Fighting words", words that can reasonably be expected to provoke a violent responce, have NO protction under the 1st Amendment or any other part of the Constitution. People who have made a career spewing "fighting words" in PRIVATE venues can and should be barred from doing the same thing in a public one, especially a public school.


That is true, the courts have made such rulings - and that is where such decisions blame. Not in the hands of the masked, armed street mobs or the "that hurts my feelings" mindset. If it hurts your feelings, don't listen.


sounds like you would have been a royalist during the Revolution and soon woud have had to move to Canada. WOuldnt have been able to stand that mob action. 

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

225 Views
Message 94 of 270

rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:
YOUR version of free speech. As i posted before, I prefer the way University of Michigan handles it with participation of all sides of free speech.

Good ol U of M has a better free speech policy than any other University.
"Students protesting at the University of Michigan disrupted about half of the speech delivered by libertarian social scientist Charles Murray on campus last night. After the speech, a public relations representative of the university called the protests "consistent with a long-established university policy regarding freedom of speech and artistic expression."

If I understand the concept, you think that the denial of free speech is free speech.


are you against the students right to free speech? If i understand your loaded question, you think the overwhelming number of students at the event should be denied theirs.

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

256 Views
Message 95 of 270

Centristsin2010 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

Centristsin2010 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

When some exercise their free speech to insult our nation and dead soldiers and others exercise their free speech as to those actions it sounds like a balance, not a one sided issue as portrayed.


Just as you exploit your right to free speech to disparage others.  It appears it's YOUR intention to misinterpret what others are saying to create conflict and dissension.  Just as your fascist leader does.  It's another one of your common threads with the fascist trump.


There is nothing I do that restricts the free speech of my fellow posters And no one suggested you did.  But lying about what others "say" and "mean" is rather restrictive and prevents an "adult discussion".  so your point is pointless.

An interesting perspective. I disagree with a posters thinking and I am "disparaging" yet when I am called a Nazi, fascist, Kluxer, etc. that is acceptable to the left.


As usual, nothing in your post has anything to do with the post you are responding to.  So YOUR point is pointless and is nothing but the usual trolling.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

244 Views
Message 96 of 270

Olderscout66 wrote:

Mao once said "Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.

 

IMHO, the Republicans are so paranoid about communism they decided to turn that thought on it's head and give command of their Party to the Gun(nuts). Now they continue to support those who decide their "speech" must involve the slaughter of innocents for them to be heard by making sure as many innocents a possible will be slaughtered every time someone decides to let his/her gun do the talking.


Is Mao wrong? Remember the discussion is not unlimited freedom to arm - it is what is a reasonable way to balance the rights of the people and the need for public safety. True - no guns, no shootings. But also no cars, no vehicular homicide or any other kind of highway deaths.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

243 Views
Message 97 of 270

Olderscout66 wrote:

SCOTUS long ago established that not all speech is protected. "Fighting words", words that can reasonably be expected to provoke a violent responce, have NO protction under the 1st Amendment or any other part of the Constitution. People who have made a career spewing "fighting words" in PRIVATE venues can and should be barred from doing the same thing in a public one, especially a public school.


That is true, the courts have made such rulings - and that is where such decisions blame. Not in the hands of the masked, armed street mobs or the "that hurts my feelings" mindset. If it hurts your feelings, don't listen.

Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

241 Views
Message 98 of 270

rk9152 wrote:

Centristsin2010 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

When some exercise their free speech to insult our nation and dead soldiers and others exercise their free speech as to those actions it sounds like a balance, not a one sided issue as portrayed.


Just as you exploit your right to free speech to disparage others.  It appears it's YOUR intention to misinterpret what others are saying to create conflict and dissension.  Just as your fascist leader does.  It's another one of your common threads with the fascist trump.


There is nothing I do that restricts the free speech of my fellow posters And no one suggested you did.  But lying about what others "say" and "mean" is rather restrictive and prevents an "adult discussion".  so your point is pointless.


As usual, nothing in your post has anything to do with the post you are responding to.  So YOUR point is pointless and is nothing but the usual trolling.


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

247 Views
Message 99 of 270

Mao once said "Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.

 

IMHO, the Republicans are so paranoid about communism they decided to turn that thought on it's head and give command of their Party to the Gun(nuts). Now they continue to support those who decide their "speech" must involve the slaughter of innocents for them to be heard by making sure as many innocents a possible will be slaughtered every time someone decides to let his/her gun do the talking.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Free Speech

245 Views
Message 100 of 270

alferdpacker wrote:

 


Fishslayer777 wrote:
Out of curiosity, how would you characterize this ... "we need to have shootouts in your church.

Considering recent occurrences, the subject should be scheduled for a congregational meeting discussion and vote - to determine whether the congregation is in favor of it or against it as a regularly scheduled part of church activities...

 

 

 

 


Don't you know it is too soon to discuss anything like that.

Report Inappropriate Content