The House Bill Would Mean a Tax Hike for Millions of Seniors. Learn More

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 91 of 241 (91 Views)

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

 



It seems impossible to get an answer from MIseker, so I'll ask the writers of the above - Cassandra Santiago and Tina Burnside, what are your thoughts on "What do we want, dead cop..."? is that hates speech so not covered by free speech? And how about those Klan hoods vs masks and bandannas?


Why do you go to such great lengths and use never ending examples in trying to defend a white supremacist hate group such as the KKK?


There is no way a rational thinker could see any defense of anyone in the above.


Rational thinkers follow what logic you are trying to interject.  Klan hoods vs bandanas? yup..the Klan promotes hate, the bandanas go after the hate group. see? they are at oppostie ends of the spectrum, but, you continue to compare the two, trying to equate them. you are, in most of your posts, telling people they must believe apples and oranges are the same. 

 

What do we want Dead Cops is pretty radical, but its not revolutionary, it reactionary. whay do you suppose people are have that kind of a reaction? could it be they are tired of cops victimizing them? I know to you thats another apples to apples but its not. its been going on since before the constitution allowed for southern militias chasing slaves. 


Klan hoods are illegal in much of the country - antifa masks should be treated the same.

 

"Whay" do I suppose people have such a reaction? - because victimology has become a major industry and often an excuse for bad behavior.

 

I am not aware of any "slave chasing" lately. So, let's stick to our contemporary context.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 92 of 241 (95 Views)

Richva wrote:

The thing about the right to free speach is that it is not the right to exercise it anywhere you wish.  If the students at a university do not wish to hear a certain speaker, that speaker has every right to walk to the nearest public space and continue the dialog.  

 

When Milo Yiannopoulos came out for man/boy sex, the conservatives un-invited him from THEIR convention but scream if he does not get invited to Berkely. Trump states flag burners should lose their citizenship. He claimed a speaker had no right to say Trump had not read the Constitution.  He has blocked anyone from his Twitter feed who disagree with him. He has repeatedly called for shutting down parts of the internet. He wants to stiffen libel laws to protect his thin hide. 

 

So, as usual, the conservatives want it both ways. No restrictions on when and where for the people with whom they agree but screams of "We need to be protected from this" for anyone who does not. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-brief-history-of-donald-trumps-mixed-messages-on-freedom-o...


If the students do not want to hear his words - no one is requiring their attendance.

 

Yes, we Conservatives do want it both ways - the right for anyone to say anything they want and the right for anyone to not attend such speeches that they do not want to hear.

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,174
Registered: ‎11-18-2009

Re: Free Speech

Message 93 of 241 (107 Views)

Fishslayer777 wrote:
This last post is classic fertile ground for authoritarianism. If you don't see that.... your blind.


ill put it this way..i dont see it. so you say im blind. right? if you want me to see it, you are going to have to point out FIRST what post, then explain. otherwise, you are just protesting someone free speech here, and adding an insult. I mean its par for the course with all of us. yet.....

 

So it begins.
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,174
Registered: ‎11-18-2009

Re: Free Speech

Message 94 of 241 (104 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

 



It seems impossible to get an answer from MIseker, so I'll ask the writers of the above - Cassandra Santiago and Tina Burnside, what are your thoughts on "What do we want, dead cop..."? is that hates speech so not covered by free speech? And how about those Klan hoods vs masks and bandannas?


Why do you go to such great lengths and use never ending examples in trying to defend a white supremacist hate group such as the KKK?


There is no way a rational thinker could see any defense of anyone in the above.


Rational thinkers follow what logic you are trying to interject.  Klan hoods vs bandanas? yup..the Klan promotes hate, the bandanas go after the hate group. see? they are at oppostie ends of the spectrum, but, you continue to compare the two, trying to equate them. you are, in most of your posts, telling people they must believe apples and oranges are the same. 

 

What do we want Dead Cops is pretty radical, but its not revolutionary, it reactionary. whay do you suppose people are have that kind of a reaction? could it be they are tired of cops victimizing them? I know to you thats another apples to apples but its not. its been going on since before the constitution allowed for southern militias chasing slaves. 

So it begins.
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,060
Registered: ‎06-07-2016

Re: Free Speech

Message 95 of 241 (107 Views)
@Mlseker

I hope that just a defensive answer, because it's seems fairly obvious that I'm not against free speech, but I am wary of one group accusing another of lying so much people are killing themselves. That is the language and pattern of authoritarianism to demonise the Jews. It's tantamount to hate speech that created the holocaust.


Hate is not a Christian virtue, neither is liberal sanctimony
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 12,554
Registered: ‎02-28-2008

Re: Free Speech

Message 96 of 241 (114 Views)

The thing about the right to free speach is that it is not the right to exercise it anywhere you wish.  If the students at a university do not wish to hear a certain speaker, that speaker has every right to walk to the nearest public space and continue the dialog.  

 

When Milo Yiannopoulos came out for man/boy sex, the conservatives un-invited him from THEIR convention but scream if he does not get invited to Berkely. Trump states flag burners should lose their citizenship. He claimed a speaker had no right to say Trump had not read the Constitution.  He has blocked anyone from his Twitter feed who disagree with him. He has repeatedly called for shutting down parts of the internet. He wants to stiffen libel laws to protect his thin hide. 

 

So, as usual, the conservatives want it both ways. No restrictions on when and where for the people with whom they agree but screams of "We need to be protected from this" for anyone who does not. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-brief-history-of-donald-trumps-mixed-messages-on-freedom-o...

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 97 of 241 (111 Views)

MIseker wrote:

Fishslayer777 wrote:
This last post is classic fertile ground for authoritarianism. If you don't see that.... your blind.


does that mean you are against free speech?


Is that really your interpretation of the post - or are you just playing games?

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,174
Registered: ‎11-18-2009

Re: Free Speech

Message 98 of 241 (104 Views)

Fishslayer777 wrote:
This last post is classic fertile ground for authoritarianism. If you don't see that.... your blind.


does that mean you are against free speech?

So it begins.
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 25,306
Registered: ‎07-11-2013

Re: Free Speech

[ Edited ]
Message 99 of 241 (101 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

Olderscout66 wrote:

Our Constitution was written when an excellent orator could project his voice no more than 200 yards, and the only record of what was said was the written word, copied down by a listener. There were charismatic speakers, but no Universities with entire departments devoted to understanding and perfecting the art of persuasion and entire agencies of Government devoted to delivering specific messages to an audience of billions without the listener realizing who was doing the talking.

 

In short, today "Free Speech" is a very slippery concept and those who demand it be followed per the rules of the 18th Century are those who use it to deceive and enrage rather than to enlighten and support.

 

We now have tragic proof "free speech" can be used to rig an election so the biggest liar wins. The protests against fascists and KKK speaking in public are the only real defense against those glib purveyors of hate and division from prevailing in the polls so the Nation ceases to function as a Democracy.

 

The Public has a right to NOT be lied to that supersedes the RWers Right to Lie. You can go to jail for driving a person to suicide with glib talk, and that same standard needs to be applied to those who would drive us to a National Suicide where Democracy is the victim.

 

 


An interesting idea - pols always told the truth until.....when was it, around the time of the Reagan taxscam?

 

Back in the day there were things called "muckrakers" who used journalism to sell their ideas. Was that wrong?

 

Nixon got tripped up by a media that did not exist in the colonial days. Was that wrong?

 

JFK beat Nixon due to the use of TV, not available in the colonial days. Was that wrong?

 

Ideas and freedom are not technology based - they stand alone.

 

And then the idea of RWers Right to Lie - does the left have exclusive Right to Lie?


Everyone who breathes has told lies - and will unquestionably tell more before they cease breathing - it is a basic human characteristic.

 

An elevated propensity for telling lies currently exists in a majority of members of the Grand Old Pedophile (republican) party...

 

 

Have pity for Melania - she wakes up with a jerk every morning
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: Free Speech

Message 100 of 241 (94 Views)

Olderscout66 wrote:

Our Constitution was written when an excellent orator could project his voice no more than 200 yards, and the only record of what was said was the written word, copied down by a listener. There were charismatic speakers, but no Universities with entire departments devoted to understanding and perfecting the art of persuasion and entire agencies of Government devoted to delivering specific messages to an audience of billions without the listener realizing who was doing the talking.

 

In short, today "Free Speech" is a very slippery concept and those who demand it be followed per the rules of the 18th Century are those who use it to deceive and enrage rather than to enlighten and support.

 

We now have tragic proof "free speech" can be used to rig an election so the biggest liar wins. The protests against fascists and KKK speaking in public are the only real defense against those glib purveyors of hate and division from prevailing in the polls so the Nation ceases to function as a Democracy.

 

The Public has a right to NOT be lied to that supersedes the RWers Right to Lie. You can go to jail for driving a person to suicide with glib talk, and that same standard needs to be applied to those who would drive us to a National Suicide where Democracy is the victim.

 

 


An interesting idea - pols always told the truth until.....when was it, around the time of the Reagan taxscam?

 

Back in the day there were things called "muckrakers" who used journalism to sell their ideas. Was that wrong?

 

Nixon got tripped up by a media that did not exist in the colonial days. Was that wrong?

 

JFK beat Nixon due to the use of TV, not available in the colonial days. Was that wrong?

 

Ideas and freedom are not technology based - they stand alone.

 

And then the idea of RWers Right to Lie - does the left have exclusive Right to Lie?