Make the best choices for your Medicare needs with AARP’s Medicare Made Easy. Try it today!

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
174
Views

Re: Free Speech

174 Views
Message 81 of 101

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

In the early '60s Ayn Rand was on a speaking tour addressing large audiences in such places as Yale, MIT, Princeton, Columbia (the home of the Frankfurt School), and many more.

 

This was before Mario Savio started the "Free Speech Movement" and yet she was "free to speak.

 

Can you imagine that today what with antifa, disinvitations, the need for police escorts, safe zones for the snowflakes, pc, etc..

 

It seems that back then "free speech" really meant "freedom to speak". Today it means "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".


You are equating freedom of speech on a college campus with freedom of speech in a public forum.  Personally, I think colleges have gone over the edge and seem to be teaching their students that they can go through life without ever being offended or hearing a contradictory point of view.  As far as freedom of speech in a public forum, it is still there and it does mean that people who disagree with you do have the right to attend and have their own freedom of speech arguments.  If you want to make sure that nobody shows up to oppose you, you can always give a speech at a private event (either one you are invited to or your own).


As I said, "freedom of speech" has become "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

 

As far as attending and having their own freedom of speech - do you believe in some standards or structure whereby the speaker says his piece and then opposite points of view are expressed by invited speakers and finally a Q&A period?

 

The problem with the current situation, all you have to do is bring in a mob that might be 10% the size of the number of those who came to hear the speaker or the program - and they can shut it down by shouting it down. I don't see "shouting him down" as free speech - I see it as denial of free speech.


No rk9152, you are wrong again "freedom of speech has not  become anything. It has always been legal for any private person or entity to stop anyone from speaking on their private property.  The problem with "the current situation" is that you don't understand what "freedom of speech" really is. The government cannot refuse you, any group, or anyone else the right to speak on public land. I, as a private individual can forbid you or anyone else from speaking on my property. The same goes for a  school.

 

Sorry, but what you "think" or what you "see it as" means nothing


You are missing my point but I can't tell if it is from sincere misunderstanding or merely seeking the approval of the "disagree to be disagreeable" element. I'll take the positive approach and suggest you go back to the first post and hopefully you will see that I have been pointing out how far we have gone down the road towards blocking the opening of minds in a half century - particularly in the university setting.


The Constitution allows Universities to decide who they allow to speak on their facilities.  Would you rather see universities have to allow white supremacist hate speech on their campuses?


The question isn't the ability for the university to decide. It is the ability of the mob to over-ride those decisions.

 

Yes, I believe white supremacists and black separatists and others (except preaching violence) should have a right to speak - people should have a right to listen and then make their own decisions.


Yes people have a right to listen and make their own decisions. It seems you are not happy with those decisions.

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
174
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
173
Views

Re: Free Speech

173 Views
Message 82 of 101

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

In the early '60s Ayn Rand was on a speaking tour addressing large audiences in such places as Yale, MIT, Princeton, Columbia (the home of the Frankfurt School), and many more.

 

This was before Mario Savio started the "Free Speech Movement" and yet she was "free to speak.

 

Can you imagine that today what with antifa, disinvitations, the need for police escorts, safe zones for the snowflakes, pc, etc..

 

It seems that back then "free speech" really meant "freedom to speak". Today it means "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".


You are equating freedom of speech on a college campus with freedom of speech in a public forum.  Personally, I think colleges have gone over the edge and seem to be teaching their students that they can go through life without ever being offended or hearing a contradictory point of view.  As far as freedom of speech in a public forum, it is still there and it does mean that people who disagree with you do have the right to attend and have their own freedom of speech arguments.  If you want to make sure that nobody shows up to oppose you, you can always give a speech at a private event (either one you are invited to or your own).


As I said, "freedom of speech" has become "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

 

As far as attending and having their own freedom of speech - do you believe in some standards or structure whereby the speaker says his piece and then opposite points of view are expressed by invited speakers and finally a Q&A period?

 

The problem with the current situation, all you have to do is bring in a mob that might be 10% the size of the number of those who came to hear the speaker or the program - and they can shut it down by shouting it down. I don't see "shouting him down" as free speech - I see it as denial of free speech.


No rk9152, you are wrong again "freedom of speech has not  become anything. It has always been legal for any private person or entity to stop anyone from speaking on their private property.  The problem with "the current situation" is that you don't understand what "freedom of speech" really is. The government cannot refuse you, any group, or anyone else the right to speak on public land. I, as a private individual can forbid you or anyone else from speaking on my property. The same goes for a  school.

 

Sorry, but what you "think" or what you "see it as" means nothing


You are missing my point but I can't tell if it is from sincere misunderstanding or merely seeking the approval of the "disagree to be disagreeable" element. I'll take the positive approach and suggest you go back to the first post and hopefully you will see that I have been pointing out how far we have gone down the road towards blocking the opening of minds in a half century - particularly in the university setting.


The Constitution allows Universities to decide who they allow to speak on their facilities.  Would you rather see universities have to allow white supremacist hate speech on their campuses?


The question isn't the ability for the university to decide. It is the ability of the mob to over-ride those decisions.

 

Yes, I believe white supremacists and black separatists and others (except preaching violence) should have a right to speak - people should have a right to listen and then make their own decisions.


The KKK is the "mob" that ran a vehicle into a crowd killing a woman and injuring dozens.

 

Those you refer to have the right to speak on public property, like the KKK did resulting in one of their members or supporters killing a woman and injuring dozens.  A university has the right to refuse to let them speak on their property.

 

Thank goodness that right has not been taken away, or we could end up with the KKK causing the death and injury of college students.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
173
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
167
Views

Re: Free Speech

167 Views
Message 83 of 101

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

In the early '60s Ayn Rand was on a speaking tour addressing large audiences in such places as Yale, MIT, Princeton, Columbia (the home of the Frankfurt School), and many more.

 

This was before Mario Savio started the "Free Speech Movement" and yet she was "free to speak.

 

Can you imagine that today what with antifa, disinvitations, the need for police escorts, safe zones for the snowflakes, pc, etc..

 

It seems that back then "free speech" really meant "freedom to speak". Today it means "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".


You are equating freedom of speech on a college campus with freedom of speech in a public forum.  Personally, I think colleges have gone over the edge and seem to be teaching their students that they can go through life without ever being offended or hearing a contradictory point of view.  As far as freedom of speech in a public forum, it is still there and it does mean that people who disagree with you do have the right to attend and have their own freedom of speech arguments.  If you want to make sure that nobody shows up to oppose you, you can always give a speech at a private event (either one you are invited to or your own).


As I said, "freedom of speech" has become "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

 

As far as attending and having their own freedom of speech - do you believe in some standards or structure whereby the speaker says his piece and then opposite points of view are expressed by invited speakers and finally a Q&A period?

 

The problem with the current situation, all you have to do is bring in a mob that might be 10% the size of the number of those who came to hear the speaker or the program - and they can shut it down by shouting it down. I don't see "shouting him down" as free speech - I see it as denial of free speech.


As I said, colleges seem to be teaching their students that they can go through life without ever being offended (college campuses are one place that discussion should be carried out and not stifled). 

As far as freedom of speech in a PUBLIC venue, everybody has the right to show up and saw their peace.  With microphones and loud speakers, I don't think 10% could shut it down and if those 10% resort to violence, then they should be arrested, just as anybody trying to stop them from having their say by violence should be arrested.  It is interesting that you think denying one side of an argument their free speech rights isn't the same thing.


Fine out in the park let the people all scream at each other - megaphones and all. But in an environment involving a speaker, in an auditorium and an audience there to hear the speaker, to me that is a different set of circumstances.

 

What is interesting is that you see it as "one side". It isn't "one side" it is the invited speaker (regardless of point or position) vs the audience members.


The University of Michigan encourages all students to participate in free speech events, and exercise their rights.

 

Michigan State provided a venue for Richard Spencer and he wasnt happy with it, and cancelled his tour. He said it wasnt worth it to continue, meaning he wasnt happy with the consequences of his free speech. 

 

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
167
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
169
Views

Re: Free Speech

169 Views
Message 84 of 101


As I said, "freedom of speech" has become "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

 

 

No it hasnt. there you go with your jordan peterson thinking again. 

 

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
169
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
171
Views

Re: Free Speech

171 Views
Message 85 of 101

@rk9152 wrote:

@gruffstuff wrote:

It seems that back then "free speech" really meant "freedom to speak". Today it means "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

 

Protest is free speech, it is why we have free speech as a right in the Constitution.

 

I don't see how stopping or curtailing protest promotes free speech, on the contrary it is defining which speech is acceptable and which is not.

 

People who have to manage public place like colleges have to deal with that and balance speech and protest.

 

That may mean the Ann Coulters of the world might have to find different venues.

 

Fortunately technology has already solved this problem, we all have unlimited free speech on social media, FaceBook, UTube,  web sites, and Twitter and the like.

 

Anyone and everyone has a soap box to stand on now.

 

We the people have more free speech then we have ever had.


Yes, we are free to shout each other down. But what about the freedom to express an opinion for others to hear and then discuss?

 

The Ann Coulter comment is approval of speech suppression.


A College refusing anyone to speak on their property is their Constitutional right. Would you like to take that away from them? Those wanting to express their opinions are free to do so somewhere else.

 

Is the TOS "speech suppression?


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
171
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
161
Views

Re: Free Speech

161 Views
Message 86 of 101

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

In the early '60s Ayn Rand was on a speaking tour addressing large audiences in such places as Yale, MIT, Princeton, Columbia (the home of the Frankfurt School), and many more.

 

This was before Mario Savio started the "Free Speech Movement" and yet she was "free to speak.

 

Can you imagine that today what with antifa, disinvitations, the need for police escorts, safe zones for the snowflakes, pc, etc..

 

It seems that back then "free speech" really meant "freedom to speak". Today it means "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".


You are equating freedom of speech on a college campus with freedom of speech in a public forum.  Personally, I think colleges have gone over the edge and seem to be teaching their students that they can go through life without ever being offended or hearing a contradictory point of view.  As far as freedom of speech in a public forum, it is still there and it does mean that people who disagree with you do have the right to attend and have their own freedom of speech arguments.  If you want to make sure that nobody shows up to oppose you, you can always give a speech at a private event (either one you are invited to or your own).


As I said, "freedom of speech" has become "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

 

As far as attending and having their own freedom of speech - do you believe in some standards or structure whereby the speaker says his piece and then opposite points of view are expressed by invited speakers and finally a Q&A period?

 

The problem with the current situation, all you have to do is bring in a mob that might be 10% the size of the number of those who came to hear the speaker or the program - and they can shut it down by shouting it down. I don't see "shouting him down" as free speech - I see it as denial of free speech.


No rk9152, you are wrong again "freedom of speech has not  become anything. It has always been legal for any private person or entity to stop anyone from speaking on their private property.  The problem with "the current situation" is that you don't understand what "freedom of speech" really is. The government cannot refuse you, any group, or anyone else the right to speak on public land. I, as a private individual can forbid you or anyone else from speaking on my property. The same goes for a  school.

 

Sorry, but what you "think" or what you "see it as" means nothing


You are missing my point but I can't tell if it is from sincere misunderstanding or merely seeking the approval of the "disagree to be disagreeable" element. I'll take the positive approach and suggest you go back to the first post and hopefully you will see that I have been pointing out how far we have gone down the road towards blocking the opening of minds in a half century - particularly in the university setting.


The Constitution allows Universities to decide who they allow to speak on their facilities.  Would you rather see universities have to allow white supremacist hate speech on their campuses?


The question isn't the ability for the university to decide. It is the ability of the mob to over-ride those decisions.

 

Yes, I believe white supremacists and black separatists and others (except preaching violence) should have a right to speak - people should have a right to listen and then make their own decisions.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
161
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
154
Views

Re: Free Speech

154 Views
Message 87 of 101

@gruffstuff wrote:

It seems that back then "free speech" really meant "freedom to speak". Today it means "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

 

Protest is free speech, it is why we have free speech as a right in the Constitution.

 

I don't see how stopping or curtailing protest promotes free speech, on the contrary it is defining which speech is acceptable and which is not.

 

People who have to manage public place like colleges have to deal with that and balance speech and protest.

 

That may mean the Ann Coulters of the world might have to find different venues.

 

Fortunately technology has already solved this problem, we all have unlimited free speech on social media, FaceBook, UTube,  web sites, and Twitter and the like.

 

Anyone and everyone has a soap box to stand on now.

 

We the people have more free speech then we have ever had.


Yes, we are free to shout each other down. But what about the freedom to express an opinion for others to hear and then discuss?

 

The Ann Coulter comment is approval of speech suppression.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
154
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
167
Views

Re: Free Speech

167 Views
Message 88 of 101

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

In the early '60s Ayn Rand was on a speaking tour addressing large audiences in such places as Yale, MIT, Princeton, Columbia (the home of the Frankfurt School), and many more.

 

This was before Mario Savio started the "Free Speech Movement" and yet she was "free to speak.

 

Can you imagine that today what with antifa, disinvitations, the need for police escorts, safe zones for the snowflakes, pc, etc..

 

It seems that back then "free speech" really meant "freedom to speak". Today it means "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".


You are equating freedom of speech on a college campus with freedom of speech in a public forum.  Personally, I think colleges have gone over the edge and seem to be teaching their students that they can go through life without ever being offended or hearing a contradictory point of view.  As far as freedom of speech in a public forum, it is still there and it does mean that people who disagree with you do have the right to attend and have their own freedom of speech arguments.  If you want to make sure that nobody shows up to oppose you, you can always give a speech at a private event (either one you are invited to or your own).


As I said, "freedom of speech" has become "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

 

As far as attending and having their own freedom of speech - do you believe in some standards or structure whereby the speaker says his piece and then opposite points of view are expressed by invited speakers and finally a Q&A period?

 

The problem with the current situation, all you have to do is bring in a mob that might be 10% the size of the number of those who came to hear the speaker or the program - and they can shut it down by shouting it down. I don't see "shouting him down" as free speech - I see it as denial of free speech.


No rk9152, you are wrong again "freedom of speech has not  become anything. It has always been legal for any private person or entity to stop anyone from speaking on their private property.  The problem with "the current situation" is that you don't understand what "freedom of speech" really is. The government cannot refuse you, any group, or anyone else the right to speak on public land. I, as a private individual can forbid you or anyone else from speaking on my property. The same goes for a  school.

 

Sorry, but what you "think" or what you "see it as" means nothing


You are missing my point but I can't tell if it is from sincere misunderstanding or merely seeking the approval of the "disagree to be disagreeable" element. I'll take the positive approach and suggest you go back to the first post and hopefully you will see that I have been pointing out how far we have gone down the road towards blocking the opening of minds in a half century - particularly in the university setting.


The Constitution allows Universities to decide who they allow to speak on their facilities.  Would you rather see universities have to allow white supremacist hate speech on their campuses?


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
167
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
165
Views

Re: Free Speech

165 Views
Message 89 of 101

It seems that back then "free speech" really meant "freedom to speak". Today it means "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

 

Protest is free speech, it is why we have free speech as a right in the Constitution.

 

I don't see how stopping or curtailing protest promotes free speech, on the contrary it is defining which speech is acceptable and which is not.

 

People who have to manage public place like colleges have to deal with that and balance speech and protest.

 

That may mean the Ann Coulters of the world might have to find different venues.

 

Fortunately technology has already solved this problem, we all have unlimited free speech on social media, FaceBook, UTube,  web sites, and Twitter and the like.

 

Anyone and everyone has a soap box to stand on now.

 

We the people have more free speech then we have ever had.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
165
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
170
Views

Re: Free Speech

170 Views
Message 90 of 101

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

In the early '60s Ayn Rand was on a speaking tour addressing large audiences in such places as Yale, MIT, Princeton, Columbia (the home of the Frankfurt School), and many more.

 

This was before Mario Savio started the "Free Speech Movement" and yet she was "free to speak.

 

Can you imagine that today what with antifa, disinvitations, the need for police escorts, safe zones for the snowflakes, pc, etc..

 

It seems that back then "free speech" really meant "freedom to speak". Today it means "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".


You are equating freedom of speech on a college campus with freedom of speech in a public forum.  Personally, I think colleges have gone over the edge and seem to be teaching their students that they can go through life without ever being offended or hearing a contradictory point of view.  As far as freedom of speech in a public forum, it is still there and it does mean that people who disagree with you do have the right to attend and have their own freedom of speech arguments.  If you want to make sure that nobody shows up to oppose you, you can always give a speech at a private event (either one you are invited to or your own).


As I said, "freedom of speech" has become "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

 

As far as attending and having their own freedom of speech - do you believe in some standards or structure whereby the speaker says his piece and then opposite points of view are expressed by invited speakers and finally a Q&A period?

 

The problem with the current situation, all you have to do is bring in a mob that might be 10% the size of the number of those who came to hear the speaker or the program - and they can shut it down by shouting it down. I don't see "shouting him down" as free speech - I see it as denial of free speech.


No rk9152, you are wrong again "freedom of speech has not  become anything. It has always been legal for any private person or entity to stop anyone from speaking on their private property.  The problem with "the current situation" is that you don't understand what "freedom of speech" really is. The government cannot refuse you, any group, or anyone else the right to speak on public land. I, as a private individual can forbid you or anyone else from speaking on my property. The same goes for a  school.

 

Sorry, but what you "think" or what you "see it as" means nothing


You are missing my point but I can't tell if it is from sincere misunderstanding or merely seeking the approval of the "disagree to be disagreeable" element. I'll take the positive approach and suggest you go back to the first post and hopefully you will see that I have been pointing out how far we have gone down the road towards blocking the opening of minds in a half century - particularly in the university setting.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
170
Views