Free Speech is becoming overrated. Free speech has without a doubt allowed propaganda organs to arise in the US that have had a definite impact on the intelligence level of voters. So while some of you may complain out of one side of your mouth about the social-political situation we have found ourselves in and then hail Free speech as a blessing out of the other side of your mouth... Please don't bother retorting about the sacred sacrament of Amendment #1. Hoky Fiddle Faddle! There's dozen upon dozens of other nations with various iterations of law and speech protections with speech being protected in varying degrees. Something needs to be done about the growing amount of slime journalism and blatant propaganda being spewed by outlets. Much of it easily borders on what I would call hate. But worse than hate is lying and misinformation to deceive populations in order to maintain a political dog and pony show. In order to maintain that "theater" peoples hatreds and fears must be played upon. This is how you end up with a nation of seemingly vibrant, cultured, innovative people who somehow live in parallel with the most incarcerated people per capita and the biggest War/Killing machine the world has ever known, that absorbs half of the national treasury. How's that free speech working out for ya'll!?!?Finally someone that gets it - a position beyond reproach by which all other speech should be compared. An opinion so righteous and pure that it will give us the right to judge and silence all dissent to save this country from tyranny, the law, and, of course, the terrible war/killing machine. I know I will sleep better tonight knowing that the forces of good will finally conquer ignorance and hatred that is free speech.
Free Speech is becoming overrated. Free speech has without a doubt allowed propaganda organs to arise in the US that have had a definite impact on the intelligence level of voters. So while some of you may complain out of one side of your mouth about the social-political situation we have found ourselves in and then hail Free speech as a blessing out of the other side of your mouth... Please don't bother retorting about the sacred sacrament of Amendment #1. Hoky Fiddle Faddle! There's dozen upon dozens of other nations with various iterations of law and speech protections with speech being protected in varying degrees. Something needs to be done about the growing amount of slime journalism and blatant propaganda being spewed by outlets. Much of it easily borders on what I would call hate. But worse than hate is lying and misinformation to deceive populations in order to maintain a political dog and pony show. In order to maintain that "theater" peoples hatreds and fears must be played upon. This is how you end up with a nation of seemingly vibrant, cultured, innovative people who somehow live in parallel with the most incarcerated people per capita and the biggest War/Killing machine the world has ever known, that absorbs half of the national treasury. How's that free speech working out for ya'll!?!?:ohh: Have you been drinking?
:ohh: Have you been drinking?No. Why should I accept the defense of Hate Speech on principle alone? Many countries have restrictions on hate speech and inflammatory speech. They seem to be doing just fine. If we were to make modifications to our laws concerning hate speech or inflammatory speech do you really think there would be an overwhelming crowd of people in the streets demanding to bring back hate speech. I doubt it. What's your basis for defending all forms of hate speech other than some old crusty parchment that was written over 250 years ago? A document that didn't list hate as something to be defended in the first place. Don't bother with corny retorts. Everybody's heard all the old adages about freedoms and rights. Don't ask if I have been drinking, give me a real counter to this.
Finally someone that gets it - a position beyond reproach by which all other speech should be compared. An opinion so righteous and pure that it will give us the right to judge and silence all dissent to save this country from tyranny, the law, and, of course, the terrible war/killing machine. I know I will sleep better tonight knowing that the forces of good will finally conquer ignorance and hatred that is free speech.Yes, thank you. But I meant change the laws. I didn't say "save the country from the law." Laws can be changed and modified. Nobody's going to miss hate speech...except haters.
:ohh: Have you been drinking?No. Why should I accept the defense of Hate Speech on principle alone? Many countries have restrictions on hate speech and inflammatory speech. They seem to be doing just fine. We accept a lot of things on principle alone, constitutionally. The countries that restrict speech are dull and lifeless.
If we were to make modifications to our laws concerning hate speech or inflammatory speech do you really think there would be an overwhelming crowd of people in the streets demanding to bring back hate speech. I doubt it.I don't know if we can make modifications to this. But Yeah, I do think many people would be in favor bringing free speech, or as you consider it- "hate speech" back. If it was taken away.
What's your basis for defending all forms of hate speech other than some old crusty parchment that was written over 250 years ago? A document that didn't list hate as something to be defended in the first place. Don't bother with corny retorts. Everybody's heard all the old adages about freedoms and rights. Don't ask if I have been drinking, give me a real counter to this.First, hate is impossible to categorize. That means anything can be "hate". Then, if we make "hate" unlawful and punishable, the entire society will be in a permanent state of litigation.
Something needs to be done about the growing amount of slime journalism and blatant propaganda being spewed by outlets. Much of it easily borders on what I would call hate. But worse than hate is lying and misinformation to deceive populations in order to maintain a political dog and pony show. In order to maintain that "theater" peoples hatreds and fears must be played upon.The irony, of course, is that the segment of the population whose opinions you so vehemently oppose means that you hate either them or what they stand for or how they express themselves. Thus, your opinion opposing them means you are committing hate speech yourself. And therein lies the problem with laws on something so subjective as "hate speech."
What's your basis for defending all forms of hate speech other than some old crusty parchment that was written over 250 years ago? A document that didn't list hate as something to be defended in the first place. Don't bother with corny retorts. Everybody's heard all the old adages about freedoms and rights. Don't ask if I have been drinking, give me a real counter to this.First, hate is impossible to categorize. That means anything can be "hate". Then, if we make "hate" unlawful and punishable, the entire society will be in a permanent state of litigation. I agree with mid Atlantic here and with to address Vyazma"s question. I will start out with a simple desire – I don’t wish to be sent to jail (or lose my job) for speaking my opinion or having fear that someone will claim that it is hate speech. People that are confident in their moral and ethical positions do not need to silence others – a simple concept but oh so important. If you start agreeing to silence some, then you leave the door open to silence all disent. The fact that we are having this discussion scares me the hell out of me. Perhaps what I am most concerned about is that we have a group of people (I call them the radial left but it could be anyone) that think that their position is so morally and ethically superior to others that by definition they are right. That alone should cause us fear. Not only do they wish to define what hate speech is but they want to use those defintions to silence their foes. If you don’t see a problem here, then you are not a thinking man or you are part of the radical left seeking to silence those that oppose you. There is also a fundamental double standard at work here. I know that you wish to define hate speech as something like the n-word but where do you draw the line? I see a lot of hate speech against the KKK. I am not saying that they don’t deserve hate but what gives the radical left the right to hate groups that they oppose but not vice versa? Look at your own statement: “who somehow live in parallel with the most incarcerated people per capita and the biggest War/Killing marhine th world has ever known…". I think I could make a case that this is hate speech. You certainly do not have much love for the military. Do you really want to find yourself drawing fine lines between what one group considers hate speech and another sees as free speech? The evolution of the hate speech debate finds its origins in the minority and women’s movements. And can there be any denying that it is a political movement set up to squash disent against them? It is not a moral stance, it is a way to politically manipulate and control those they see as the enemy. I refuse to have any group dictate to me what I can and cannot say in an effort to politically control. The sheer audacious nature of it is astonishing. Finally, have you ever read Malcom X’s autobiography? It is one of the finest books I have ever read. But X was the very definition of hate speech (at least in his early life). Let’s not forget that X was a radical black muslim set on violent destruction of the enemy. The same group he was part of was the group that eventually killed him. But would anyone here wish to silence Malcom X or prevent his book from being publised because they thought it hate speech? Your position of the moral high ground looks great when you are trying to silence the KKK or those that use the n-word. But not so good when you begin to apply it in general terms. Do you really wish to silence Farrakhan or is your movement only against those you are politically opposed to?
If we were to make modifications to our laws concerning hate speech or inflammatory speech do you really think there would be an overwhelming crowd of people in the streets demanding to bring back hate speech. I doubt it.I don't know if we can make modifications to this. But Yeah, I do think many people would be in favor bringing free speech, or as you consider it- "hate speech" back. If it was taken away. Oh yeah. Modifications can be made. Here's one example. Supreme Court to hear new case on public prayer Robert Barnes. Washington Post 11/02/2013 Prayers before a town’s board meetings.... Now the prayer people will probably win this time but... And of course there are Special Federal and State Statutes and Codes designed to deal with Hate Crimes. For hundreds of years people have defended prayer as free speech. And often times that conflicts with the separation of church and state. So you see laws change. And I disagree with you. As these laws slowly change, and things like prayer and hate are outlawed in schools, public places, etc, the only people who may fight for their return will seem anachronistic and vulgar. Base.
We accept a lot of things on principle alone, constitutionally. The countries that restrict speech are dull and lifeless.Yeah. We have free speech. Whatever that means? We also have the highest percentage of people in prison or jail in the world. We have a Defense Budget that is larger than the next 15 or so largest Defense Budgets combined. One Half of our Treasury.(Tax Dollars) Every Year. And we have 10% of the population controlling over 80% of the nations wealth. Ok, the 3 things listed above are indications of a system that isn't exactly the most Free. I myself am always wary of slackjawed myrmidons who banter the loudest about freedom whilst the rug is being pulled out from under them.
Something needs to be done about the growing amount of slime journalism and blatant propaganda being spewed by outlets. Much of it easily borders on what I would call hate. But worse than hate is lying and misinformation to deceive populations in order to maintain a political dog and pony show. In order to maintain that "theater" peoples hatreds and fears must be played upon.The irony, of course, is that the segment of the population whose opinions you so vehemently oppose means that you hate either them or what they stand for or how they express themselves. Thus, your opinion opposing them means you are committing hate speech yourself. And therein lies the problem with laws on something so subjective as "hate speech." No, no. I'm simply campaigning to change laws. Redefine what Free Speech should entail. It's not difficult. Look at the 4th Amendment. Look at the 2nd Amendment. You know how many times they have been modified over the centuries? Lots! Heck there's Amendments that barely have any meaning left-if any meaning at all. The 3rd Amendment. As far as the 1st amendment goes, I see people being carted off and arrested all the time for Peaceful assembly. It's all just a matter of degrees. Interpretations.
No, no. I'm simply campaigning to change laws. Redefine what Free Speech should entail.So you don't hate members of the Tea Party? Or Fox News? Or creationists? Or nazis? And who will decide what free speech should entail? You? Me? Some government bureaucracy? Should conservatives and liberals have the same free speech rights? What about creationists and evolutionists?
Rocinante’s Signature…
There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation. —James MadisonYeah, exactly. Forget what Madison thought. That was 225 years ago. He was selling it, hard! For all of the rest of us that followed.... What? You thought that "the silent and gradual encroachment of those in power" weren't going to have an effect on our Rights? Seriously!?!?! Are you that naive? That has never NOT taken place. Anywhere on Earth, anytime since history was first recorded. That started happening in the US July 5th, 1776..in earnest!! So perhaps the people who want to infringe other's rights the most are the people who scream the loudest about the sanctity of said rights?
No, no. I'm simply campaigning to change laws. Redefine what Free Speech should entail.So you don't hate members of the Tea Party? Or Fox News? Or creationists? Or nazis? And who will decide what free speech should entail? You? Me? Some government bureaucracy? Should conservatives and liberals have the same free speech rights? What about creationists and evolutionists? Yes of course a Bureaucracy should decide it. They have been all along. Hopefully that represents some extension of the majority. In any government, bureaucracies decide most items. You knew this, no? The 3 branches of power in The US are a bureaucracy. Of course rights should extend across the spectrum equally.
Rocinante, Mid Atlantic and Volcano:
I’d be willing to wager that our common interests and goals are far more in common than we
portray.
One thing which makes our perceived differences stand out is the “speech” that is bandied about so freely on both sides of the spectrum.
I’ll be the first to admit “my speech” is polarizing.
But like I said, probably needlessly polarizing. For the most part.
Polarization is good to a point.
I think our Nation is currently stupidly crippled by polarization.
One thing that definitely contributes to that is “speech”.
A careful, studied consideration of these dynamics can’t hurt.
First, hate is impossible to categorize. That means anything can be "hate". Then, if we make "hate" unlawful and punishable, the entire society will be in a permanent state of litigation.No it's not. It's not difficult. Like I said there are plenty of laws on the books which define hate. And they stand up in courts. So by actual practice, hate can be defined. You're getting all hyperbolic. That means anything can be "hate" That right there...that's hyperbole. A monkey or a small child can be reasonably trained to determine between hate and reason. Let alone a group of distinguished lawmakers and scholars. It's not rocket science. Truth in advertising laws get bent up all the time. That's limitations on speech. And those rules get bent constantly. Awhile ago Listerine had to make good on a false claim that rinsing with their mouthwash was as good as flossing. It's all just a simple matter of how much BS society is willing to let float around in the air. And we need less BS floating around in my opinion
For hundreds of years people have defended prayer as free speech. And often times that conflicts with the separation of church and state. So you see laws change.I recognize from your later posts that you think we have a lot in common, but I would like to stress a point here. In my mind there is a clear reason why prayer in school is not free speech -- because it is forced on those who participate in the classroom. I suspect we agree on this point but in case we don't certainly there is a difference between me expressing my opinion among those that agree with me or those that are willing to freely listen to me and those that are forced to participate in something like prayer that do not share the belief system but must listen. In addition, one of my contentions is that suppressing hate speech leads to suppression of all speech that is not desired. Perhaps you are not of the described ilk I am defining but the radical left has already made some serious infringements beyond hate speech. In the academy, the university I work for has insisted that the university have "free speech" zones usually located in remote sections of the university far away from most student traffic. Apparently they felt that a free speech zone is equivalent to free speech on a public campus. The tactic was focused on suppressing the religious wackos that come on campus and preach and the anti abortion crowd that shows up once or so a year to display hideous images of aborted babies. There were several professors from various sections of campus (which included me) that objected not because we supported the speakers but because we felt they had a right to make their point anywhere on campus. It is different than prayer because no one is forced to listen - they can simply walk on by. I am for abortion and against any faith-based belief system but defend their right to make their point. So here we have a case of the speech not being hate but objectionable to the radical left intent on literally silencing those that disagree with them. These people understand power and will use it to their benefit if given the opportunity. For a while hate speech included anything that the radical left found objectionable. I am happy to say that we won the skirmish and free speech areas include all parts of campus now. But I caution you about the objectives of those that claim hate speech should be silenced. BTW, we still have a code of speech that is deemed acceptable that must be followed by all employees. I can lose my job should I violate that code. I still don't know precisely where the line is drawn but have found that no one that wishes to test it including myself. So not only do we have forbidden speech but we are required to be cordial and polite.
I recognize from your later posts that you think we have a lot in common, but I would like to stress a point here. In my mind there is a clear reason why prayer in school is not free speech -- .....I just skimmed the first paragraph of your post. It doesn't matter what you think prayer is a form of. It matters what the people who are praying think it is a form of. They argue on 2 bases. 1. Free Speech 2 Legislative tradition going back to the Founders.(more BS) Aside from all of that, prayer is a form of speech. And there are plaintiffs before a court of law to suppress it.
Quoting Volcanoman:
In my mind there is a clear reason why prayer in school is not free speech—because it is forced on those who participate in the classroom.Would this reason also apply to the required pledge of allegiance and to required oral exercises in class?
Occam