2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Call it a societal filter.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over someone getting their view on the connection between homosexuality and bestiality stifled.

Like I said, some people value being free to speak (I avoided saying "freedom of speech" since you have a hangup with that phrase) and diversity of speech more, and some people value it less.

 

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Like I said, some people value being free to speak (I avoided saying "freedom of speech" since you have a hangup with that phrase) and diversity of speech more, and some people value it less.

Do you believe liberals and/or conservatives tend to value freedom to speak more or less as a group?

 

[Slap Shot]

Do you believe liberals and/or conservatives tend to value freedom to speak more or less as a group?

You responded to a straw man. No one has been identified as not being free to speak.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Like I said, some people value being free to speak (I avoided saying "freedom of speech" since you have a hangup with that phrase) and diversity of speech more, and some people value it less.

Hate speech is hate speech. If you expect it to be uttered unchallenged then you live in la la land.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Hate speech is hate speech. If you expect it to be uttered unchallenged then you live in la la land.

Its different dealing with older conservatives. They long for the days in the 80's and 90's where you could blame blacks and gays for all problems in front of the CPAC or Christian Coalition audiances, maintain secret families or mistresses on the side, pay for an abortion when you knocked one of them up, etc....but none of that ever got back to you due to an incompetent and lazy media.

Now controversial comments get exposed and ridiculed if they're stupid. If Duck Dork wants to see old men marrying 15 year old girls for example, he needs to either own that comment or S T F U. Even though I have a slight bias against conservatives, even I hate to see grown men cry. Sadly, that's become an epidemic in right wing circles (I call it Boehneritis, after oft-sobbing House Speaker John Boner).

 

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Hate speech is hate speech. If you expect it to be uttered unchallenged then you live in la la land.

We should all challenge such speech every time it's uttered, but to make it punishable by law is something else entirely.

ETA: I say that while thinking of the speech codes that various (most by now, probably) colleges have put in place. No, it's not law, but the actions taken by universities can have very detrimental results to kids' futures. Also, the scope of what these codes cover are very easily abused, stamping out all speech that's counter to the university's own agenda.

 

[walrus]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Do you believe liberals and/or conservatives tend to value freedom to speak more or less as a group?

Neither of them like it when they don't agree with what is said

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

We should all challenge such speech every time it's uttered, but to make it punishable by law is something else entirely.

ETA: I say that while thinking of the speech codes that various (most by now, probably) colleges have put in place. No, it's not law, but the actions taken by universities can have very detrimental results to kids' futures. Also, the scope of what these codes cover are very easily abused, stamping out all speech that's counter to the university's own agenda.

Frankly I am not familiar with speech codes of any university.

Having said that, I bet that most of such codes are of little detriment to students. I would imagine that putting restrictions on language that is overly disrespectful to gays and specific races is probably a good thing (and such language is not really tolerated elsewhere in society already). Beyond that, most universities have no problems with freedom of thought. From what I know, University of Minnesota has a number of very conservative organizations that are thriving. Speech codes wouldn't change that in the slightest. There are always individuals who have agendas, but that rarely translates to a whole campus. In fact my guess is that freedom of thought is more likely to be impacted by a university's agenda at a school like BYU or Oral Roberts rather than normal state universities which by and large seem to get and embrace diversity of thought.

 

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

I know I've quoted the following paragraph from Justice Holmes' dissent in Abrams v. United States before in this site, but it is worth repeating IMO:

"Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. I wholly disagree with the argument of the Government that the First Amendment left the common law as to seditious libel in force. History seems to me against the notion. I had conceived that the United States, through many years, had shown its repentance for the Sedition Act of 1798, by repaying fines that it imposed. Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave the correction of evil counsels to time warrants [p631] making any exception to the sweeping command, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Of course, I am speaking only of expressions of opinion and exhortations, which were all that were uttered here, but I regret that I cannot put into more impressive words my belief that, in their conviction upon this indictment, the defendants were deprived of their rights under the Constitution of the United States."

What makes that single paragraph so special is not only its eloquence but it's context. Holmes was dissenting from an opinion upholding the conviction for sedition of Bolshevik sympathizers who had spread pamplets around NYC intended to impede our government's war efforts in WWI (and aid the Bolsheviks). Although the red scare was not mature at that point, the content of those pamplets would be the rough equivalent of advocating for islamist interests abroad in our current political climate. For Holmes to write what he did in that context is remarkable.

I believe very strongly that Holmes got it right, that "the best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." But calling out idiots like the Duck Dynasty clown and openly and strongly criticizing his comments is not inconsistent in any way with Holmes' marketplace of ideas concept.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Call it a societal filter.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over someone getting their view on the connection between homosexuality and bestiality stifled.

I know I've quoted the following paragraph from Justice Holmes' dissent in Abrams v. United States before in this site, but it is worth repeating IMO:

"Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. I wholly disagree with the argument of the Government that the First Amendment left the common law as to seditious libel in force. History seems to me against the notion. I had conceived that the United States, through many years, had shown its repentance for the Sedition Act of 1798, by repaying fines that it imposed. Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave the correction of evil counsels to time warrants [p631] making any exception to the sweeping command, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Of course, I am speaking only of expressions of opinion and exhortations, which were all that were uttered here, but I regret that I cannot put into more impressive words my belief that, in their conviction upon this indictment, the defendants were deprived of their rights under the Constitution of the United States."

What makes that single paragraph so special is not only its eloquence but it's context. Holmes was dissenting from an opinion upholding the conviction for sedition of Bolshevik sympathizers who had spread pamplets around NYC intended to impede our government's war efforts in WWI (and aid the Bolsheviks). Although the red scare was not mature at that point, the content of those pamplets would be the rough equivalent of advocating for islamist interests abroad in our current political climate. For Holmes to write what he did in that context is remarkable.

I believe very strongly that Holmes got it right, that "the best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." But calling out idiots like the Duck Dynasty clown and openly and strongly criticizing his comments is not inconsistent in any way with Holmes' marketplace of ideas concept.

I don't think it's necessary for the public to come down with a ton of scorn on people like Mr. Duck Dynasty when he talks about bestiality or 15 year olds, or happy african americans picking cotton. We don't need to "stifle" that speech, whether we lose sleep over that stifling or not. Let them speak. Give them a wider audience or a bigger microphone. Encourage them to express their views even more fully, without trying to argue with them, or shout them down.

What you have to do is have faith in reason, the ability of most people to listen to that speech, to read that GQ article, and to conclude the guy is a lunatic without someone telling them he's a lunatic, or trying to silence his voice. Mr. Duck Dynasty had faith in reason, faith enough to put his words out there. It may have been misguided faith, but it was faith just the same.

I'm not saying that people can't write or speak a contrary position. That's important to do. I just think any sort of effort to stifle an expression of views through public scorn on condemnation works a hazard to our country. You may not agree with what he is saying, but what he says this time, or maybe next time, may be important.

Just my two cents.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

What you have to do is have faith in reason, the ability of most people to listen to that speech, to read that GQ article, and to conclude the guy is a lunatic

HAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

Oh that's rich! Have faith in people. That's a good one! Thanks for the laugh!

Oh wait, you were serious?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

HAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

Oh that's rich! Have faith in people. That's a good one! Thanks for the laugh!

Oh wait, you were serious?

I hope YOU'RE kidding. What's the alternative to having faith in (the) people? Setting up a special panel to do their thinking for them, Mr. Orwell? Who gets to choose the people to sit on the panel? And who chooses them?

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

I hope YOU'RE kidding. What's the alternative to having faith in (the) people? Setting up a special panel to do their thinking for them, Mr. Orwell? Who gets to choose the people to sit on the panel? And who chooses them?

The alternative is to sign over all your assets to me and join my cult, I mean "movement".

In other news, I was initially dismissive of this story, mostly because it seemed to juvenile for a politician like Chris Christie, but it might have legs after all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...8/3-questions-on-chris-christies-bridge-gate/

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

HAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

Oh that's rich! Have faith in people. That's a good one! Thanks for the laugh!

Oh wait, you were serious?

Actually, I was.

I really don't participate in social media or online forums, beyond this forum, siouxsports (on a limited basis) and one other. Not surprisingly I find all three to have similar traits. Someone expresses a view. It may be unpopular, or at least unpopular with an active group of "regulars" on the forum, and the typical response is non-stop heapings of public scorn on the poster, often to a point where anything the poster writes is met with mockery.

Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, the targeted posters have not been me. Not because I write only mainstream opinions or the power of my words makes them immune to criticism. I'm just not a real active poster in any of those forums.

But I've seen those targeted posters post less and less, or sometimes disappear altogether from the forum, and I've often thought that if I were them, I'd have been gone a lot sooner.

That's a loss for everyone.

Take for example Bob Gray. I don't mean to single out Bob, for he's not alone. But certainly you and other regular posters on this forum are quick to respond to pretty much anything he posts with jeers, mockery and the like. And for what purpose.

You are not officially blocking his freedom of speech. But you are intentionally or unintentionally stifling it by trying to turn him into a social outcast through his words.

If the "Bob's" of the world are saying things you think most people would find unbelievable, silly or just plain wrong, do you think you're the only one intelligent enough to see that? Do you not trust others to reason their way through his posts and reach that conclusion for themselves?

Must we always try to squelch their thoughts through teasing, mockery, verbal or written abuse and the like? If I were one of the "Bob Grays" of the internet forum world, I'd say the heck with it and spend my time reading a book. And that's unfortunate, because whether you always agree with, or disagree with their points of view, it benefits you to have them express it. Because candidly Priceless, if it's just you posting on this board, and not the "Bob Grays", I'm not going to spend my time reading it either.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." --William F. Buckley

Not only that, but liberals want to punish speech they deem inappropriate, to enforce conformity. We see examples of this phenomenon every day. The gauleiters of gay orthodoxy are not unique in that regard. It's just that so many media elite these days (MSNBC, A&E, etc) are willing, anxious even, to appease the gay gestapo. It's only when A & E's bottom line was threatened that they decided to do the right thing: nothing.

Being in favor of free speech is a little like pregnancy, there's no such thing as "sort of" supporting the concept. You either favor free speech or you don't. I have written here that MSNBC was wrong to sh*t can Alec Baldwin (what he said wasn't on their air and was apparently spontaneous). But the "network" was so anxious to pander to their gay and ultra liberal audience, they went all Queen of Hearts on his a*s. What MSNBC should have done is fire Martin Bashir and explain that scatological comments have no place on their air, no matter who they're aimed at. They did the first but just couldn't quite bring themselves to be seen as even theoretically defending Sarah Palin from lefty rhetorical excesses. Can't be seen doing that.

The left shows itself, daily, hourly, to be so deeply hypocritical on this issue it's hard to take them seriously. And no fair minded person does. Only the residents of Jonestown.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Hate speech is hate speech. If you expect it to be uttered unchallenged then you live in la la land.

And you, modestly, are willing to decide what "hate" speech is, I presume. And hand down the punishments?

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Must we always try to squelch their thoughts through teasing, mockery, verbal or written abuse and the like? If I were one of the "Bob Grays" of the internet forum world, I'd say the heck with it and spend my time reading a book. And that's unfortunate, because whether you always agree with, or disagree with their points of view, it benefits you to have them express it. Because candidly Priceless, if it's just you posting on this board, and not the "Bob Grays", I'm not going to spend my time reading it either.

Yes, if their thoughts are either 1) stupid, or 2) a regurgitation of talking points they heard on the radio a few hours earlier.

Take your professional career. If you go around saying or proposing stupid things on the job, you will most likely get made fun of eventually before you get mercifully fired. That's just the way the real world works, which I fear many a conservative no longer lives in. First Amenment rights will not allow you to stay employed.

Likewise, the problem with giving an audience to dangerous speech is that if you let it go, it festers and grows. It needs to be counteracted, sometimes nicely and sometimes not. I'm sure the 1980's were a wonderful time when conservatives could say whatever they pleased with no blowback, but that was 30 years ago. I invite all of you to join the new century, which is nearly a decade and a half old....

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

And you, modestly, are willing to decide what "hate" speech is, I presume. And hand down the punishments?

Yes and Yes Opie. Is there some sort of swearing in ceremony for me?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Neither of them like it when they don't agree with what is said

True enough. But today's liberals have convinced themselves they are "on a mission from God" to punish anyone who speaks out of turn. There are countless examples, starting I suppose with their efforts to silence Limbaugh. Efforts that have been going on for years. I'm not aware of any conservatives wanting to shut down liberal radio talkers, or MSNBC or Huff Po. Conservatives just ignore them. Or don't listen. Or complain about them. But that's not good enough for today's liberals. "He who speaks out against us. or what we believe in, must be silenced."

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

True enough. But today's liberals have convinced themselves they are "on a mission from God" to punish anyone who speaks out of turn. There are countless examples, starting I suppose with their efforts to silence Limbaugh. I'm not aware of any conservatives wanting to shut down liberal radio talkers, or MSNBC or Huff Po. Conservatives just ignore them. Or complain about them. But that's not good enough for today's liberals. "He who speaks out against us. or what we believe in, must be silenced."

You need to borrow Bob's cross if he's not using it.