NBC News Thinks Free Speech Should Be Regulated

[LowDown]

...because there are so many people saying things that offend them.

In that case NBC won't mind if Trump puts restrictions on things that NBC can say to criticize Trump.

Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America

Maybe it’s time we stop defending Nazis.

So, they just call anyone they don't like a Nazi, and that shuts down all speech from the people they don't like!

What an idea! I'm sending Trump that suggestion right now.

 

[Redress]

...because there are so many people saying things that offend them.

In that case NBC won't mind if Trump puts restrictions on things that NBC can say to criticize Trump.



So, they just call anyone they don't like a Nazi, and that shuts down all speech from the people they don't like!

What an idea! I'm sending Trump that suggestion right now.

See, you really should read these articles before posting them. Let me quote:

Noah Berlatsky is a freelance writer

So it is not NBC, but some guy. And you completely and totally misrepresent what the guy says. I disagree with his opinion, but I at least can argue why without lying about it. Why can't you?

 

[JackA]

...because there are so many people saying things that offend them.

In that case NBC won't mind if Trump puts restrictions on things that NBC can say to criticize Trump.



So, they just call anyone they don't like a Nazi, and that shuts down all speech from the people they don't like!

What an idea! I'm sending Trump that suggestion right now.

Overstating it, but not by much.

 

[Jack Hays]

See, you really should read these articles before posting them. Let me quote:



So it is not NBC, but some guy. And you completely and totally misrepresent what the guy says. I disagree with his opinion, but I at least can argue why without lying about it. Why can't you?

It's featured on the NBC site. Is there a disclaimer to say the opinions are the author's own, and don't necessarily represent NBC?

 

[ttwtt78640]

This is an opinion piece thus saying that it is the NBC position is ridiculous. I also disagree with that opinion but not the fact that someone allowed it to be publicized.

My main beef with that opinion piece is that it quickly went from not allowing Nazi's to preach their bigoted nonsense to complaining about police arresting and charging folks for rioting, trespassing or property damage. Hate speech is not smply any speech that "politically correct" folks hate to hear and allowing protesting does not include allowing rioting, trespassing or damaging property.

 

[LowDown]

See, you really should read these articles before posting them. Let me quote:



So it is not NBC, but some guy. And you completely and totally misrepresent what the guy says. I disagree with his opinion, but I at least can argue why without lying about it. Why can't you?

For the life of me I can't see why this post of yours is nothing more than a mis-characterization of my post. If you are saying that the article in question is not promoting restriction of free speech then you are mistaken.

Are you saying that any guy who wants to publish at NBC can do so, and that NBC is not responsible for what they say, has no control over at all? Of course this is an obvious and ridiculous dodge.

This is some pretty evil stuff you appear to be trying to defend.

 

[faithful_servant]

See, you really should read these articles before posting them. Let me quote:



So it is not NBC, but some guy. And you completely and totally misrepresent what the guy says. I disagree with his opinion, but I at least can argue why without lying about it. Why can't you?

If they are providing him the venue, then there must be some level of trust in what he is saying.

 

[LowDown]

This is an opinion piece thus saying that it is the NBC position is ridiculous. I also disagree with that opinion but not the fact that someone allowed it to be publicized.

My main beef with that opinion piece is that it quickly went from not allowing Nazi's to preach their bigoted nonsense to complaining about police arresting and charging folks for rioting, trespassing or property damage. Hate speech is not smply any speech that "politically correct" folks hate to hear and allowing protesting does not include allowing rioting, trespassing or damaging property.

But "hate speech" has become exactly that -- speech that left wingers want to suppress. So they define any opposition speech as "hate" speech. Because talking about reducing transfer payments by the government is hateful, even violent, don'cha know.

 

[ttwtt78640]

But "hate speech" has become exactly that -- speech that left wingers want to suppress. So they define any opposition speech as "hate" speech. Because talking about reducing transfer payments by the government is hateful, even violent, don'cha know.

The problem, of course, is that once you let the government do the "hate speech" suppressing then you get exactly what the OP link goes on to object to - government agents rounding up (arresting and jailing) everyone because they were involved in that "hateful" protest. No longer would proof of rioting or property damage be required - the charge would then be "supporting hate speech" and the proof would simply be that you were there and so was "hate speech".

 

[Deuce]

For the life of me I can't see why this post of yours is nothing more than a mis-characterization of my post. If you are saying that the article in question is not promoting restriction of free speech then you are mistaken.

Are you saying that any guy who wants to publish at NBC can do so, and that NBC is not responsible for what they say, has no control over at all? Of course this is an obvious and ridiculous dodge.

This is some pretty evil stuff you appear to be trying to defend.

"Don't let people calling for extermination get a permit to yell in the faces of the people they want to exterminate" may not be in line with the first amendment but it's hardly an evil thought.

 

[Vetplus40]

See, you really should read these articles before posting them. Let me quote:



So it is not NBC, but some guy. And you completely and totally misrepresent what the guy says. I disagree with his opinion, but I at least can argue why without lying about it. Why can't you?

Because he is like the 30% of typical "rah rah" Trump supporters WITHOUT the mental ability to think for themselves. They simply repeat what they hear like low I.Q. "talking parrots". They are not interested in facts, they like the "reality T.V." atmosphere of a Trump presidency that they can participate in with little in the way of intellect being required.

 

[Somerville]

But "hate speech" has become exactly that -- speech that left wingers want to suppress. So they define any opposition speech as "hate" speech. Because talking about reducing transfer payments by the government is hateful, even violent, don'cha know.

One must wonder if you failed to read the following words

If Nazis are silenced, other people will be silenced. You need to protect people who hate marginalized people, or marginalized people will be targeted next.

Now in the next to last paragraph, the writer does provide a little justification for some free speech restrictions, even though earlier in the piece he had noted that America's history of failing to apply all Constitutional protections to every member of the society, particularly those belonging to racial minorities.

"Free speech!" is a battle cry that has been picked up by neo-Nazis and white supremacists. They see First Amendment advocates as allies —and it's not because they love freedom.

 

[Jack Hays]

One must wonder if you failed to read the following words

Now in the next to last paragraph, the writer does provide a little justification for some free speech restrictions, even though earlier in the piece he had noted that America's history of failing to apply all Constitutional protections to every member of the society, particularly those belonging to racial minorities.

The most vigorous free speech advocates I know are the ACLU. I'm with them.

 

[joG]

...because there are so many people saying things that offend them.

In that case NBC won't mind if Trump puts restrictions on things that NBC can say to criticize Trump.



So, they just call anyone they don't like a Nazi, and that shuts down all speech from the people they don't like!

What an idea! I'm sending Trump that suggestion right now.

I have run into that line of argument a lot in European countries and don’t really think it is valid in healthy democracies. As a matter of fact, my observation of Germany, Austria or France and later the USA over the period as pc speak has spread and become increasingly enforced has persuaded me that the effects of censorship are quite dangerous to the democracy and that the “slippery slope “ argument is dead on albeit gradual.

 

[Redress]

If they are providing him the venue, then there must be some level of trust in what he is saying.

So you are saying that Vague, the owner of DP, who is providing you with a venue, has some level of trust in what you are saying?

 

[TobyOne]

NBC exerts editorial choice. Do you think this article could have been published on Fox, Reason or The Daily Caller? No, but it has a really good chance of getting published on places like network news sites, huffingtonpost and the DailyKos.

See, you really should read these articles before posting them. Let me quote:



So it is not NBC, but some guy. And you completely and totally misrepresent what the guy says. I disagree with his opinion, but I at least can argue why without lying about it. Why can't you?

 

[joG]

NBC exerts editorial choice. Do you think this article could have been published on Fox, Reason or The Daily Caller? No, but it has a really good chance of getting published on places like network news sites, huffingtonpost and the DailyKos.

I would feel much better to be able to believe it could have been published in any of the large Anglo Saxon media and that an article accompanied it to point out, what questions must be answered before knowing, if the idea made sense. Above all, I would have thought such an article would point out that the present interpretation of the constitution would be that quashing the expression of opinion should be forbidden unless the Constitution is changed.

 

[Somerville]

A more factual headline would be NBC News Thinks People Should be Allowed to Express Controversial Opinions. That is the purpose of their THINK pages.

 

[reinoe]

...because there are so many people saying things that offend them.

In that case NBC won't mind if Trump puts restrictions on things that NBC can say to criticize Trump.



So, they just call anyone they don't like a Nazi, and that shuts down all speech from the people they don't like!

What an idea! I'm sending Trump that suggestion right now.

I believe that NBC are Nazis and are the first who need to be silenced.

 

[gdgyva]

So you are saying that Vague, the owner of DP, who is providing you with a venue, has some level of trust in what you are saying?

Isn’t an open forum slightly different than a newspaper or a network?

An open forum has rules, and is moderated

The newspaper and networks have editorial staffs....I would think they would have some say on what they allow in their publications

 

[Nickyjo]

If they are providing him the venue, then there must be some level of trust in what he is saying.

My local liberal-editorial newspaper has columns from conservatives a lot, with no disclaimer. It might well have featured that guy's opinion, which represents sort of a European view of free speech, more restrictive than what we have in the US. I disagree with the guy, as am more of an ACLU type, but what's wrong with letting him speak? Suggesting that this reflects badly on NBC is absurd. As Robert Reich said about denying Ann Coulter the right to speak, "How else can we learn how vapid her ideas are." This guy's ideas are a defensible position I disagree with. No harm, no foul by NBC.

 

[Nickyjo]

NBC exerts editorial choice. Do you think this article could have been published on Fox, Reason or The Daily Caller? No, but it has a really good chance of getting published on places like network news sites, huffingtonpost and the DailyKos.

FOX might have published it if the guy was suggesting that anti-Iraq war speech might be restricted, as it undermined our servicemen and women overseas and gave comfort to terrorists. Used to happen from conservative sources during the Vietnam war. Ditto FOX and those you mention might feature a Trump column about changing libel laws as he suggested, tho I think even they would draw a line if he repeated his Stalinist "enemies of the people" BS about the media.

 

[LowDown]

So you are saying that Vague, the owner of DP, who is providing you with a venue, has some level of trust in what you are saying?

I doubt if the owner of DP even reads most posts. At NBC, on the other hand, the situation is very different. They not only read everything they publish, they correct the spelling and grammar. Yes, they are responsible for the content. Publication is their imprimatur of substance.

 

[DamnYankee]

Freedom, especially freedom of speech, is the biggest thorn in the side of the left.

 

[Deuce]

Freedom, especially freedom of speech, is the biggest thorn in the side of the left.

Minoriies are the biggest thorn in the side of the right, because everyone on the right is racist!!

This is a fun game, what do you call it?