Liberals: Freedom of speech for me but not for thee

[sean miguel]

Freedom = Violence ?

sometimes. Something about the tree of liberty needing to be watered and such.

It can be absolutely peaceful under an absolute tyrant.

I'm pretty sure I can walk the streets of Pyongyang and not have to worry about being mugged, even without my minders.

 

[xfire]

Liberals: Freedom of speech for me but not for thee

Generalizations aren't particularly accurate, even if there is some truth as it pertains to some members of the broader category. I've run across both conservatives and liberals that aren't interested in opposing points of view, conversely, I've had many fine and civil discussions with conservatives and liberals alike. Throwing bombs at "libruls" to somehow assert the high ground for yourself just exposes how low you've sunk and while that may be profitable for big corporations it just illustrates the lack of tact on the part of individual rabble-rousers.

 

[sean miguel]

Generalizations aren't particularly accurate, even if there is some truth as it pertains to some members of the broader category. I've run across both conservatives and liberals that aren't interested in opposing points of view, conversely, I've had many fine and civil discussions with conservatives and liberals alike. Throwing bombs at "libruls" to somehow assert the high ground for yourself just exposes how low you've sunk and while that may be profitable for big corporations it just illustrates the lack of tact on the part of individual rabble-rousers.

Fine, there will always be exceptions, but what is prevalent? Trump at UIC vs. Sanders at Liberty University?

Political correctness is more aligned with the left or the right? "Hate speech" is a term of the left or the right? Speech codes on college campuses are being pushed by the left or the right? Free marketplace of ideas my ass.

I could go on.

Who is more likely to label someone a racist or a nazi if they disagree with another's viewpoint?

Everyone has a religion. Some are more fervent than others.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Generalizations aren't particularly accurate, even if there is some truth as it pertains to some members of the broader category. I've run across both conservatives and liberals that aren't interested in opposing points of view, conversely, I've had many fine and civil discussions with conservatives and liberals alike. Throwing bombs at "libruls" to somehow assert the high ground for yourself just exposes how low you've sunk and while that may be profitable for big corporations it just illustrates the lack of tact on the part of individual rabble-rousers.

I just put a strip of duct tape over that post.

 

[Johan]

sometimes. Something about the tree of liberty needing to be watered and such.

As far as I know, every single western civilised country forbids violence. Assault is illegal in the US, right ?

Also, since we are talking about freedom of speech, what about the freedom of speech of these protestors ? As long as they are just peacefully protesting Trump, why would they be denied their Freedom of Speech ? How can a presidential candidate refuse to grant freedom of speech to certain people, just because they do not agree with him ?

It can be absolutely peaceful under an absolute tyrant.

I'm pretty sure I can walk the streets of Pyongyang and not have to worry about being mugged, even without my minders.

Nope. You'll be quickly spotted and arrested by police. Then they would torture you untill you confess being an american spy. Then they'll execute you, in public. And they'll send the tape of your confession and your execution to CNN.

Only tyrannies legalise government violence on its own citizens and on foreigners.

 

[xfire]

Fine, there will always be exceptions, but what is prevalent? Trump at UIC vs. Sanders at Liberty University?

Political correctness is more aligned with the left or the right? "Hate speech" is a term of the left or the right? Speech codes on college campuses are being pushed by the left or the right? Free marketplace of ideas my ass.

I could go on.

Who is more likely to label someone a racist or a nazi if they disagree with another's viewpoint?

Everyone has a religion. Some are more fervent than others.

Depends on location and perspective. I get shouted down all the time and can't really speak my mind without having to tiptoe around sensitive over-reactors, but that's ok. Freedom of speech is a two-way proposition, and I don't expect to get to say whatever I want to without someone with an opposing point of view having a response. That's not my opposition trying to take away my freedom, it's a perfectly reasonable reciprocation of the exercise of my 1st Amendment rights.

 

[mikexmoran]

Depends on location and perspective. I get shouted down all the time and can't really speak my mind without having to tiptoe around sensitive over-reactors, but that's ok. Freedom of speech is a two-way proposition, and I don't expect to get to say whatever I want to without someone with an opposing point of view having a response. That's not my opposition trying to take away my freedom, it's a perfectly reasonable reciprocation of the exercise of my 1st Amendment rights.

Stop being so sane and reasonable.

 

[sean miguel]

Depends on location and perspective. I get shouted down all the time and can't really speak my mind without having to tiptoe around sensitive over-reactors, but that's ok. Freedom of speech is a two-way proposition, and I don't expect to get to say whatever I want to without someone with an opposing point of view having a response. That's not my opposition trying to take away my freedom, it's a perfectly reasonable reciprocation of the exercise of my 1st Amendment rights.

Yes, but in my example isn't a case of shouting down as part of a back and forth. This is outright forbidding. Liberals are smarter right? So they should be able to win the arguments without having to resort to measures to silence the opposition. Like calling for muscle or something.

 

[Jack Davenport]

If not for the 2nd Amendment, the tolerant left would take away American's private property rights and jack booted thugs would be spilling blood in the streets of anyone that opposed them.

The Democrat party is the most destructive force facing this country and they are now unapologetic in their leftist agenda.

 

[xfire]

Yes, but in my example isn't a case of shouting down as part of a back and forth. This is outright forbidding. Liberals are smarter right? So they should be able to win the arguments without having to resort to measures to silence the opposition. Like calling for muscle or something.

Shouting down can always be countered with louder shouting, not that I advocate for either. Forbidding would require some sort of legal declaration and associated consequences. But I agree that attempting to silence one's opposition has no place in civil discourse, of course then you have to look at the message that's being attempted to be silenced, is that civil to begin with? Probably not, but it really is immaterial, neither side were being carted to jail and fed a dirt sandwich. The 1st Amendment prevents government from curtailing free speech, Trump cancelled the event, Durbin's reaction has no legal weight, and the 1st Amendment remains unscathed by either.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Getting tired of the "1st Amendment only applies to the government" canard.

Secondary rulings have made it clear that freedom of speech can be considered imposed upon by individuals or non government entities as well.

 

[sean miguel]

Getting tired if the "1st Amendment only applies to the government" canard.

Secondary rulings have made it clear that freedom of speech can be imposed upon by individuals or non government entities as well.

and if not the letter of the law, it certainly violates the spirit of it. The liberals are all about tolerance, diversity and kumbaya (except that's a christian reference), right? Supposedly.

They're full of shit. They'd be first to round people up if they could get away with it. Again, that 2nd amendment.

 

[Jack Davenport]

How many of those protestors had those cutesy "Tolerance" stickers on their vehicles? You've seen them. With the various religious symbols.

 

[georges]

How many of those protestors had those cutesy "Tolerance" stickers on their vehicles? You've seen them. With the various religious symbols.

I don't think that the so called supporters have the "tolerance" stickers but more "the thug 4 life and proud to be a jackass" sticker

 

[Jack Davenport]

I don't think that the so called supporters have the "tolerance" stickers but more "the thug 4 life and proud to be a jackass" sticker

:1orglaugh

 

[Straight Shooter]

Getting tired of the "1st Amendment only applies to the government" canard.

Secondary rulings have made it clear that freedom of speech can be considered imposed upon by individuals or non government entities as well.

The 1st is pretty straight forward. You don't have to be a constitutional law professor to understand it. There's no ambiguity to it. It clearly refers to an oppressive government when in the first line it says " Congress shall make no law". I'm baffled as to how this is being so misunderstood. Private entities and spaces are not required to protect your speech. To say that counter protest violates freedom of speech is to totally misunderstand what free speech even means.

Which secondary rulings are you referring to?

 

[Jack Davenport]

Examples of what is allowed under the 1st Amendment:

West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

Examples of what is not:


Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)


Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)

Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)

These are all clear secondary rulings.

When I get appointed to SCOTUS, I'll let you clerk for me.

Quit getting generic answers from blogs about 1st Amendment rights from leftists with an agenda that want to circumvent 1st Amendment rights when it suits their purpose.

 

[Will E Worm]

Quit getting generic answers from blogs about 1st Amendment rights from leftists with an agenda that want to circumvent 1st Amendment rights when it suits their purpose.

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...es_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html


Those "laws" already limit free speech. Time to repeal them.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/ar...-laws-to-destroy-freedom-of-speech-in-america

 

[Jack Davenport]

Avoid the ABA at all times if possible.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Examples of what is allowed under the 1st Amendment:

West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

Examples of what is not:


Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)


Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)

Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)

These are all clear secondary rulings.

When I get appointed to SCOTUS, I'll let you clerk for me.

Quit getting generic answers from blogs about 1st Amendment rights from leftists with an agenda that want to circumvent 1st Amendment rights when it suits their purpose.

Schenck dealt with sedition. Roth v. U.S dealt with obscenity. Bethel School District dealt with school speech. None have any relevance to what we are talking about here. I'm aware of what is allowed and not allowed under the 1st. I'm still unable to find any legal scholar that says the 1st does not only apply to oppressive government. The govt did not shut down Trump's rally. He did. Contrary to what Trump said the police never advised him to cancel the rally. To say that protestors canceled his rally is to say that the protestors are authority and have the power to do so.