Free Speech Has Consequences

  • :lol:lol:lol


    couldn't help myself... saw the tittle and had to bring this one here...


    The Chilling of Free Speech Has Consequences


    Lately, particularly over the latest kerfuffle in science fiction, but even before that, I’ve noticed a disturbing trend amid my progressive acquaintances.

    They will sometimes go so far as to mutter about how the First Amendment should not protect people who say this or that – you know what I mean – usually speech they don’t like under various guises: racism, sexism, and other things ending in “ism” such as any flavor of conservatism and libertarianism (they’re oddly okay with communism. Go figure. I like to abbreviate this to “we’d like the First Amendment to exclude things that make us upset,” which might be unkind, but is certainly truthful).


    But lately a smug and idiotic saying has shown up in those circles: “You’re allowed to say whatever you want to, so long as you take the consequences.”


    Yeah.


    Apparently, they’d like to align themselves with places like, oh, the Islamic republics, Cuba, and North Korea, where you are also allowed to say whatever you want to as long as you take the consequences.


    I see some of you starting to quibble. And yeah, it’s an undeniable fact that speech has consequences, but what should those consequences be? How proportional should they be to the speech? Should they be so overwhelming that they – de facto – negate free speech?


    Look, the logical and inevitable consequence of free speech is to have your own free speech challenged. If I climb onto a podium and state that the Earth is flat and the universe is made of turtles, I should expect my free speech to be argued with.


    And that’s perfectly logical. Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts, and obvious lies should be challenged.


    Then there’s the other immediate reaction. In older, more sane days, saying something about a guy’s mother might get you punched in the mouth. Or it might get double said about your mother. Nowadays it’s more likely to involve lawyers or a call for safe spaces.


    I’m even willing to concede getting punched might be a logical consequence of free speech. (And a saner one than safe spaces.)


    But if you say something about some guy’s mother and the guy shoots you, we can all agree it’s out of control, particularly if the guy doesn’t get punished for it.


    In the same way, when I was discussing this with one of my friends, he pointed out another area in which you take consequences: when you work for a company and say something that damages the company, you should be fired, or at least demoted.


    I am willing to allow that if what you said is directly related to the company.


    If you work for Widgets Incorporated and take to Twitter to say WI’s widgets are pretty awful, yep, firing or other sanctions should be on the line. If you take to Twitter to say Widgets Amalgamated are superior to WI, you should be fired or at least demoted. Likewise, if you take to Twitter and say the department over which you preside will not in the future be hiring any d*mn whites/blacks/purple people or will treat those already hired like “the slackers they are,” yep, you should be fired/demoted/taken out of your position of responsibility.



    rest of it is here...



    https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/truth-and-consequences/



    thinkin some may remember this...


    IIRC back in the late 60's early 70's the flag burning thing started up... and some when they saw the burning would kick some ass... literally...


    went to court and judge's ruled that burnin the flag was a form of free speech and protected so kickin their ass was a no no...


    something about violence being a curb/violation of free speech...


    hmmm....


    perhaps there could of been a counter argument that even though violence was not a good thing... in this case...


    it was protected as a form of free speech... in that you were expressing your feelings/values?


    oh well...

    Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”


    Presbyterian Rev. Gilbert Tennant:

    “He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one who has no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God has enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself.”

    The post was edited 2 times, last by wrag ().

  • Unfortunately, both parties have tried to impose limitations on the First Amendment. Not just the government but also corporations, such as forcing employees to provide their social media information so the corporations can monitor their employees behavior and speech on social media.


    A couple of years ago I was offered a really good position with a good pay raise at another gaming studio, but turned it down because they wanted access to my social media to they could monitor what I said on it. Even though I don't use social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc., I declined the job offer because I felt (and still do) that this was a gross violation of my First Amendment rights. That's why I'm happy that this year, California has made it illegal for employers to ask employees and prospective employees for access to their social media accounts.


    Even Trump has threatened to weaken the First Amendment, specifically to weaken the protection that the press has under it and make it easier for him to sue those media outlets that say bad things about him in the press.

    “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official.”

  • A lot of people don't seem to understand that the 1st amendment (and similar free speech legislation in other western democracies) only protects them from being persecuted and punished by the government. It does not protect them from being punished by their parents, spouses, employers, neighbors, congregations, communities etc. Of course the form of punishment must be lawful, but being ostracized by your family and friends is perfectly legal. Being denied service or fired from your job is also legal, but rules and regulations may apply. Printing or even just voicing "unsubstantiated lies" is illegal under libel and defamation laws, but the burden of proof is on the accuser, so you have to prove it is a lie.

    "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

  • Unfortunately, both parties have tried to impose limitations on the First Amendment. Not just the government but also corporations, such as forcing employees to provide their social media information so the corporations can monitor their employees behavior and speech on social media.


    A couple of years ago I was offered a really good position with a good pay raise at another gaming studio, but turned it down because they wanted access to my social media to they could monitor what I said on it. Even though I don't use social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc., I declined the job offer because I felt (and still do) that this was a gross violation of my First Amendment rights. That's why I'm happy that this year, California has made it illegal for employers to ask employees and prospective employees for access to their social media accounts.


    Even Trump has threatened to weaken the First Amendment, specifically to weaken the protection that the press has under it and make it easier for him to sue those media outlets that say bad things about him in the press.


    I was going to write out a long winded post about how you are a fucking moron who has apparently never once even read the fucking constitution, but I'll let someone WHO IS NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN spank you like the little bitch you are.


    A lot of people don't seem to understand that the 1st amendment (and similar free speech legislation in other western democracies) only protects them from being persecuted and punished by the government. It does not protect them from being punished by their parents, spouses, employers, neighbors, congregations, communities etc. Of course the form of punishment must be lawful, but being ostracized by your family and friends is perfectly legal. Being denied service or fired from your job is also legal, but rules and regulations may apply. Printing or even just voicing "unsubstantiated lies" is illegal under libel and defamation laws, but the burden of proof is on the accuser, so you have to prove it is a lie.


    That's got to be embarrassing for a non-American to school an American on the first amendment.

  • He's more American than most of you and about equal to me you complacent fuckwits.

    Dam high praise coming from the king of the swamp.


    But you're right about GSholtz. If we had more Americans like him it would be an even better place.

    MNN on 6/18/19

    "chump will assuredly lose 2020 barring an event that cancels the election - he just cant keep his scummy yankee mouth shut"


    MNN on 6/24/19

    Chump is going to tote an ass kicking nov 2020

  • Newly created posts will remain inaccessible for others until approved by a moderator.

    The last reply was more than 365 days ago, this thread is most likely obsolete. It is recommended to create a new thread instead.