Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
If you say the “wrong thing” in America today, you could be penalized, fired or even taken to court. Political correctness is running rampant, and it is absolutely destroying this nation. In his novel 1984, George Orwell imagined a future world where speech was greatly restricted. He called that the language that the totalitarian state in his novel created “Newspeak”, and it bears a striking resemblance to the political correctness that we see in America right now. According to Wikipedia, Newspeak is “a reduced language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit free thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, peace, etc. Any form of thought alternative to the party’s construct is classified as ‘thoughtcrime.’” Yes, people are not usually being hauled off to prison for what they are saying just yet, but we are heading down that path. Every single day, the mainstream media in the United States bombards us with subtle messages about what we should believe and what “appropriate speech” consists of. Most of the time, most Americans quietly fall in line with this unwritten speech code. In fact, most of the time we enforce this unwritten speech code among each other. Those that would dare to buck the system are finding out that the consequences can be rather severe. The following are 19 shocking examples of how political correctness is destroying America…
19 Shocking Examples Of How Political Correctness Is Destroying America
Why exactly does your free speech rights invalidate my free speech rights in criticizing what you say?
As for being taken to court...yes if proven defamation should be something that you can take someone to court for. If I went to your town and told everyone you were a pedophile it could have real ramifications for you. That's not right! That should be punishable.
you seem not to be able to distinguish between the abuse of government power to limit free speech, as discussed in 1984, when compared to objections to forms of speech by members of society, having no authority other than their force of persuasion
Clearly you didn't click the link and read the nineteen examples given, which is no exhaustive list by any means.
I didn't see any government power restricting free speech on that list either. Some of those examples clearly go over the line, but there is a huge difference between private citizens punishing others for what they said and the government enforcing penalties on speech.
Are you really attempting to argue that the first amendment is not under attack?
while i cannot speak for anagram, there is no ongoing attack upon the first amendment
but with threads like this, there is certain to soon be a run on tin foil
1. The clown was hired to do a performance. Whoever hired him has a right to decide what is acceptable while he's working for them. It would only be a 1st amendment violation if he was hired by the state and their guidelines are partisan.
2. The Seattle memo seems to be advisory only, so its not a violation.
3. I think virtually all employees, including government employees, deserve full freedom of expression while off-duty as long as they don't claim to represent their employer. However, so far the courts have allowed such restrictions.
4. A mere statement is not a rule, so its not a violation.
5. If he is teaching a science class on evolution he could reasonably be required to not mention intelligent design as if it had any scientific basis (it doesn't) . He is employed to represent his school, so I don't consider it a violation.
6. The Mayor only asked, it was not a law or enforcement action. Not a violation.
8. I don't think the government should be hiring chaplains due to the first amendment. I don't know enough about the rules they work under to have an opinion.
9. No first amendment issue at all.
10. That act protects the rights of library users-no violation.
11. I don't agree with the decision but since only one child was selected for the event, then an editorial decision was already made. Not a violation.
12. They say they were enforcing a anti-taunting rule, which is plausible. Sounds silly, but probably not a violation.
out of time to answer the rest..may be continued.
Is the thing with privacy screens at the SF library true? Most places I would have my doubt, but SF seems to love doing stuff like that
There are privacy screens and there is no content monitoring or filtering. "Perverts" aren't the only ones who want privacy and the right to view anything they want.
I disagree with all your assessments here. And if you dispute that the first amendment is under attack , then no amount of examples will persuade you.
lol, how does that address my question?
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?