People against freedom of speech and opinion more now.

Post Reply New Topic

You heart is in the right place, but I feel that any constriction of free speech could easily lead down a slippery slope.

The first amendment, for example, secures free speech but different judicial opinions have cast a light on what limits are acceptable constitutionally, and in varying degrees.

William O. Douglas and Hugo Black for example always believed in the notion of absolute free speech.

This is in a direct contrast to others like Rehnquist who simply favored the government whenever they could, and that included upholding legislation that constricted free speech.

"Extreme left" is not somebody like Biden----or even somebody like Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders would be a moderate if he were involved in European politics.

"Extreme left" is somebody like Mao Zedong (usually called "Chairman Mao"). Or Fidel Castro. People like that. Who fully embrace Marxist-type theory.

"Extreme right" is somebody like Hitler or Mussolini. There are very few Republicans, in my view, who are "extreme right."

Absolutely free speech would allow any lie to be told without the liar being held accountable.

Absolute restricted speech would result in silence except for speech that is approved by the Authorities.

Think about how much different our society would be if everyone spoke only the empirical truth, and everyone else simply accepted it. Imagine a world with no assumptions, no conjectures, no lies, not even baseless opinions.  Imagine a world in which being told "You would be healthier if you lost some weight" would carry no more emotional impact than saying "You car would run faster if you emptied out the trunk".

If only John Lennon were still around; I believe he could have explained it better.

Marvelous comment.

If I am not mistaken even Douglas said that free speech isn't absolute in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

"Slippery slope" typically gets invoked whenever a "restriction" gets mentioned, and often results int he argument taking the form of "we must do nothing, because of we do something then we might do something else, and next thing you know, totalitarianism!" - yet that same argument could be made against anything. By this logic, ALL laws are a "slippery slope", cos "once you outlaw one thing, you might outlaw another thing, and next thing you know, everything is outlawed!"

There's a reason it's called a slippery slope FALLACY.

If all speech was "free speech", period, then giving military secrets to the enemy would just be "free speech". Threatening to murder people would just be "free speech". Saying terrible things like "all autistic people should be burned alive cos they're useless" would be free speech. Screaming swear words in front of a daycare center would be "free speech". Making up lies about people and spreading them (slander / libel / defamation) would be "free speech".

"Your freedom to swing your arms ends at my nose". If your freedom of speech requires other people to give up their freedoms, that's where your freedom of speech ends. Under the provisions of strict scrutiny, the courts can put limitations and impositions on the usage of rights.

Besides, I've found that even the people who screech about "muh free speech!" the loudest, have things they think you "shouldn't say" or "can't say" - and if you question them about that contradiction, "that's different". Flags, for example. People will ignore the supreme court decision that says flag burning is protected speech, and cite the federal statute regarding "respect for the flag", but then never make a single sound about ALL THE OTHER violations of the "respect the flag" clause, like using it as a marketing logo, or putting it on disposable items to be thrown away. Kneeling for the flag=BAD! but wiping your ass with american flag toilet paper, they can't be bothered to care.

I suspect the founding fathers had no idea that things like Twitter or "internet trolls" would eventually be a thing that needed dealing with. These days, most people seem to only really be concerned with THEIR freedoms, and to hell with anyone else's... Much like how some try to hide behind "States Rights" as the reason for the civil war - though the fact remains that the "rights" they were concerned with, was slavery - when people whine about "muh free speech" usually they're just mad cos they can't say racist or sexist or otherwise bigoted ideas with the same immunity they used to enjoy.

Nicely summarized.

Just like the phrase "Your freedom to swing your arms ends at my nose", your freedom to say what you want ends at my ears, and if I do not want to listen to what you say, then I do not have to -- I can walk away, wear earplugs, turn up my music, or even stand there with a stupid smile on my face and think about what I had for supper last night -- and doing so will not violate your freedom of speech in any way, shape, or form.

Your right to free speech does not guaranty you the privilege of a sympathetic audience.

Part of that speaks to the political differences. Disco had a less white and much gayer fanbase, so it's not surprising reactionaries were able to stoke more rage against disco than against the Beatles. Disco Demolition Night was also peak rockism.

If someone is a true Christian, they cannot embrace racism.
The people you are referring to are probably simple hypocrites.

Christianity, by its nature, is totally inclusive and embraces all who wish to join.
Look at all the missionaries that the church sent all over the world.
There is no getting around that.
Perhaps many American Christians haven't been educated properly about their dogma beliefs?

Well, I wouldn't be there in the first place.
My life, my choice.

But if I was, and it turned bad, I'd get the frack out of there, pronto.
I wouldn't fight back.

Bull. [snort]!
Australia is a rather secular society, especially compared to America.
The churches are empty, and not because of the coronavirus.
We will have to agree to disagree.

Had the communist gained power, there would have been a purge of right-wingers, also.
Humanity/ego is disgusting.



See a protest.
Run for the hills, like I would.
Simples.

Last edited by Pepe on 18 Dec 2020, 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes.
The *extreme* left of politics use many of the same tactics as the *extreme* right.
There is intolerance on both sides of the political divide.
The term "Left-Wing Fascists" is well established these days.
The left simply needs to accept it.

Based on what I have heard, twitter, here in Australia, is a left-wing echo chamber full of groupthinkers.
Some get drunk, post ridiculous tweets, wake up and delete then.

It was a hoot when Labor lost the last election.
Many regretful/embarrassing tweets, by the left, were made at that time.
I still have fond memories, of those days.

I cancel your understanding.

I was under the impression that free-speech encompassed a genuine intent to be genuine.
I think you are using an incorrect/different context, here.

Well, Da Orakle Of Troof say so, so it HAS to be true!

Some people seem to keep repeating the term "left wing fascists" in the hopes that, like tinkerbell, if they believe in fairies and clap hard enough, it'll come to life!

The term "flat-earth" is well established, too. That doesn't mean it's describing a real thing. It just means it's the commonly used term to describe an idea, not that the idea is real or true. It's an idea that some people really want it to be true (clap harder, I guess?), but unfortunately for them, no matter how much they say it and believe it, it's not going to magically become real.

Besides, "left-wing fascism" means, what, they're going to force me to get free healthcare? Force me to be paid a livable wage? The horror!