Angel
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 18,001
- Reaction score
- 2,909
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
So what you're saying is speech you agree with is okay, but speech you disagree with isn't?All the rest we find ourselves mooting today under the rubric of freedom of speech is the upshot of Progressive distortion and must be exposed for the political rubbish it is.
No, I'm saying ALL speech is okay, unless treasonous, libelous, slanderous, or physically harmful.So what you're saying is speech you agree with is okay, but speech you disagree with isn't?
Save insofar as speech is treasonous or incites to physical harm, it ought to be protected and, beyond cases of slander or libel, ought not to be actionable at all.
That's it.
All the rest we find ourselves mooting today under the rubric of freedom of speech is the upshot of Progressive distortion and must be exposed for the political rubbish it is.
Save insofar as speech is treasonous or incites to physical harm, it ought to be protected and, beyond cases of slander or libel, ought not to be actionable at all.
That's it.
All the rest we find ourselves mooting today under the rubric of freedom of speech is the upshot of Progressive distortion and must be exposed for the political rubbish it is.
I don't trust Noam Chomsky's judgment at all given how wrong he was on Cambodia, so......:neutral:
So what you're saying is speech you agree with is okay, but speech you disagree with isn't?
His quote is definitely right on the $, though. Freedom of speech means protecting speech that you (general you) don't necessarily like.
But when somebody says something which would lead to violence down the road, or supports such violence, or tried to ruin somebody else's life by lying.....there's no reason why **** like that should be protected, you know?
But when somebody says something which would lead to violence down the road, or supports such violence, or tried to ruin somebody else's life by lying.....there's no reason why **** like that should be protected, you know?
But when somebody says something which would lead to violence down the road, or supports such violence, or tried to ruin somebody else's life by lying.....there's no reason why **** like that should be protected, you know?
Save insofar as speech is treasonous or incites to physical harm, it ought to be protected and, beyond cases of slander or libel, ought not to be actionable at all.
That's it.
All the rest we find ourselves mooting today under the rubric of freedom of speech is the upshot of Progressive distortion and must be exposed for the political rubbish it is.
Free speech is the government has no right to restrict it.
If you come to my kids pool party, cursing up a storm, will get you booted, there is no such thing as free speech on my property.
Now the question is...
I am concerned about the societal/legal drift represented by the point of view expressed below. Aren't you?Do you have some kind of a point here? Are you expecting someone to disagree with you? Can you site an example where you think freedom of speech is being abridged so we can better understand your concerns here?
Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want without consequences. It means you have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want without consequences FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
Circumventing the "True Threat" Standard in Campus Hate Speech Codes
by Craig R. Smith
California State University, Long Beach
*Craig R. Smith is Professor of Communication Studies and Director of the Center for First Amendment Studies at California State University, Long Beach. See his newest book, The Four Freedoms of the First Amendment (Waveland Press, 2004).
Abstract
With a series of decisions striking down speech codes on campuses, the Supreme Court has made dealing with hate speech very difficult. Speech must present a "true threat" in order to be regulated. On the other hand, the Court has been more permissive when it comes to regulations regarding sexual harassment. This study proposes using the Court's model of sexual harassment for hate speech in work and learning environments to circumvent the "true threat" standard.
The Center For First Amendment Studies CSULB | White Papers
I don't trust Noam Chomsky's judgment at all given how wrong he was on Cambodia, so......:neutral:
Then why:No, I'm saying ALL speech is okay, unless treasonous, libelous, slanderous, or physically harmful.
Then you must have missed the end of his post where he said, "the upshot of Progressive distortion and must be exposed for the political rubbish it is."From my reading of his post, it doesn't seem like that is anywhere near an accurate representation of his thought process. Actually, it looks incredibly dishonest.
Yeah...no...The metric for determining if he thinks speech is "okay" or not seems to have zero to do with agreeing with the content of the speech, but rather the impact that speech has on others. Literally nothing in his post suggests his determination is centered around whether or not he agrees with what's being stated.
Then why:
A) Bother posting the thread
B) say this: "the upshot of Progressive distortion and must be exposed for the political rubbish it is".
Mostly B though. Why say the end if all you're trying to say is all speech is okay?
I am concerned about the societal/legal drift represented by the point of view expressed below. Aren't you?
Save insofar as speech is treasonous or incites to physical harm, it ought to be protected and, beyond cases of slander or libel, ought not to be actionable at all.
That's it.
Rubbish ^^^All the rest we find ourselves mooting today under the rubric of freedom of speech is the upshot of Progressive distortion and must be exposed for the political rubbish it is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?