Freedom Of Speech?

[bilby]

As far as impact goes, it goes along with expectations and demands of conformity.

I think there is more truth to this than some on here would care to admit. You may not get prosecuted for your speech but there are absolute consequences in other areas if you fail to conform to the prevailing PC orthodoxy.

You don't have any right not to be thought an asshole, or not to be treated like an asshole, if you say assholish things.

Freedom of speech doesn't include freedom from all consequences of your speech.

You have the right to say what you want; I have the right to not employ you on the basis of things you have said.

 

[fast]

We do have the right to speak freely, and no, it's not absolute, meaning we do not have the right to say anything, as there are limits, but the limits are few and far between. If saying something is LEGALLY prohibited (and thus stands as an exception limiting the freedom in question), then the legal prohibition alone stands as evidence that our right is diminished. Jail time or incarceration need not be a factor. This doesn't mean we don't have free speech--just that it's scope isnt eternal and without exceptions.

Also, we are not free from consequence of any kind. We are free of a consequence of a particular kind. If I threaten to destroy you financially if you do not succumb to my wishes, you have the legal right without incarceration, fine, or penalty to say just what your heart desires (barring a few exceptions that's crept in over time); however, do not regard your financial doom as an infringement to your right to free speech.

 

[Rayschism]

I think there is more truth to this than some on here would care to admit. You may not get prosecuted for your speech but there are absolute consequences in other areas if you fail to conform to the prevailing PC orthodoxy.

You don't have any right not to be thought an asshole, or not to be treated like an asshole, if you say assholish things.

Freedom of speech doesn't include freedom from all consequences of your speech.

You have the right to say what you want; I have the right to not employ you on the basis of things you have said.

Some sites like say You Tube and Twitter doesn't seem to employ that mentality.

 

[bilby]

You don't have any right not to be thought an asshole, or not to be treated like an asshole, if you say assholish things.

Freedom of speech doesn't include freedom from all consequences of your speech.

You have the right to say what you want; I have the right to not employ you on the basis of things you have said.

Some sites like say You Tube and Twitter doesn't seem to employ that mentality.

Websites are privately owned media, and can publish (or not publish) whatever they like. Freedom of speech doesn't enter into it.

 

[Rayschism]

Some sites like say You Tube and Twitter doesn't seem to employ that mentality.

Websites are privately owned media, and can publish (or not publish) whatever they like. Freedom of speech doesn't enter into it.

So then where is freedom of speech?

If everything is owned and private then there really is no such thing as freedom of speech.

 

[bilby]

Websites are privately owned media, and can publish (or not publish) whatever they like. Freedom of speech doesn't enter into it.

So then where is freedom of speech?

If everything is owned and private then there really is no such thing as freedom of speech.

Not everything is owned or private. Freedom of speech applies to public speech; and implies that the government cannot prevent you from speaking publicly about whatsoever you wish.

You have the right to launch your own website, and say whatever you like on it, without government sanction. You can also publish your own newspaper, march down the street with a sandwich board, heckle politicians at public meetings, participate in peaceful assemblies, and any number of other acts of speech that, in a country without freedom of speech, would get you imprisoned and possibly tortured or even executed.

You appear to be conflating the absence of any obligation for others to provide you with a free platform, with an absence of the right to speak freely. These are very different things.

 

[Rayschism]

So then where is freedom of speech?

If everything is owned and private then there really is no such thing as freedom of speech.

Not everything is owned or private. Freedom of speech applies to public speech; and implies that the government cannot prevent you from speaking publicly about whatsoever you wish.

You have the right to launch your own website, and say whatever you like on it, without government sanction. You can also publish your own newspaper, march down the street with a sandwich board, heckle politicians at public meetings, participate in peaceful assemblies, and any number of other acts of speech that, in a country without freedom of speech, would get you imprisoned and possibly tortured or even executed.

You appear to be conflating the absence of any obligation for others to provide you with a free platform, with an absence of the right to speak freely. These are very different things.

Yet Hillary took a vow to abolish all independent press if she were to become president.

Funny things like that.


And no, I am not asking to provide me with a free platform. I'm simply extremely tired of the mentality of "I don't like what you say as it hurts my feelings in some way and so you have to shut up". It's far too prevalent in American culture, among all groups yelling and screaming at each other.

Why can't these people just learn to just change the channel like they demand everybody else?

 

[bilby]

Not everything is owned or private. Freedom of speech applies to public speech; and implies that the government cannot prevent you from speaking publicly about whatsoever you wish.

You have the right to launch your own website, and say whatever you like on it, without government sanction. You can also publish your own newspaper, march down the street with a sandwich board, heckle politicians at public meetings, participate in peaceful assemblies, and any number of other acts of speech that, in a country without freedom of speech, would get you imprisoned and possibly tortured or even executed.

You appear to be conflating the absence of any obligation for others to provide you with a free platform, with an absence of the right to speak freely. These are very different things.

Yet Hillary took a vow to abolish all independent press if she were to become president.

Citation needed.

If we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that this absurd claim was true, then it would have been unconstitutional for her to do so, and she would have been prevented from doing it on that basis.

Funny things like that.


And no, I am not asking to provide me with a free platform. I'm simply extremely tired of the mentality of "I don't like what you say as it hurts my feelings in some way and so you have to shut up". It's far too prevalent in American culture, among all groups yelling and screaming at each other.

Why can't these people just learn to just change the channel like they demand everybody else?

They could - But they don't have to, because they have the right to free speech, so they can complain as much as they like, whether or not their complaints are justified. And you are under no obligation to like, nor listen to it; Just as they are under no obligation to like, or listen to, what you have to say. They are free to tell you to shut up; and you are free to ignore that unreasonable demand.

 

[Rayschism]

Yet Hillary took a vow to abolish all independent press if she were to become president.

Citation needed.

If we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that this absurd claim was true, then it would have been unconstitutional for her to do so, and she would have been prevented from doing it on that basis.

Funny things like that.


And no, I am not asking to provide me with a free platform. I'm simply extremely tired of the mentality of "I don't like what you say as it hurts my feelings in some way and so you have to shut up". It's far too prevalent in American culture, among all groups yelling and screaming at each other.

Why can't these people just learn to just change the channel like they demand everybody else?

They could - But they don't have to, because they have the right to free speech, so they can complain as much as they like, whether or not their complaints are justified. And you are under no obligation to like, nor listen to it; Just as they are under no obligation to like, or listen to, what you have to say. They are free to tell you to shut up; and you are free to ignore that unreasonable demand.

Here is one source:

http://pamelageller.com/2016/08/sharia-prez-hillary-vows-to-shut-down-opposition-websites-if-she-wins.html/

One video for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ESKIOR_LyE

If you distrust the video you can check out the sources mentioned in it.

 

[bilby]

Citation needed.

If we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that this absurd claim was true, then it would have been unconstitutional for her to do so, and she would have been prevented from doing it on that basis.

Funny things like that.


And no, I am not asking to provide me with a free platform. I'm simply extremely tired of the mentality of "I don't like what you say as it hurts my feelings in some way and so you have to shut up". It's far too prevalent in American culture, among all groups yelling and screaming at each other.

Why can't these people just learn to just change the channel like they demand everybody else?

They could - But they don't have to, because they have the right to free speech, so they can complain as much as they like, whether or not their complaints are justified. And you are under no obligation to like, nor listen to it; Just as they are under no obligation to like, or listen to, what you have to say. They are free to tell you to shut up; and you are free to ignore that unreasonable demand.

Here is one source:

http://pamelageller.com/2016/08/sharia-prez-hillary-vows-to-shut-down-opposition-websites-if-she-wins.html/

One video for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ESKIOR_LyE

If you distrust the video you can check out the sources mentioned in it.

The self-serving paranoid delusions of Pamela Geller are not evidence that "Hillary took a vow to abolish all independent press if she were to become president".

I am not able to watch video, so I can't respond to your second link, except to say that if it is as high quality as the first, I am glad that I am not in a position to waste my time on it.

 

[Rayschism]

Citation needed.

If we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that this absurd claim was true, then it would have been unconstitutional for her to do so, and she would have been prevented from doing it on that basis.

Funny things like that.


And no, I am not asking to provide me with a free platform. I'm simply extremely tired of the mentality of "I don't like what you say as it hurts my feelings in some way and so you have to shut up". It's far too prevalent in American culture, among all groups yelling and screaming at each other.

Why can't these people just learn to just change the channel like they demand everybody else?

They could - But they don't have to, because they have the right to free speech, so they can complain as much as they like, whether or not their complaints are justified. And you are under no obligation to like, nor listen to it; Just as they are under no obligation to like, or listen to, what you have to say. They are free to tell you to shut up; and you are free to ignore that unreasonable demand.

Here is one source:

http://pamelageller.com/2016/08/sharia-prez-hillary-vows-to-shut-down-opposition-websites-if-she-wins.html/

One video for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ESKIOR_LyE

If you distrust the video you can check out the sources mentioned in it.

The self-serving paranoid delusions of Pamela Geller are not evidence that "Hillary took a vow to abolish all independent press if she were to become president".

I am not able to watch video, so I can't respond to your second link, except to say that if it is as high quality as the first, I am glad that I am not in a position to waste my time on it.

Then I don't think i will be able to provide you with something you will accept.

As for me, mainstream news is fake news, so you really won't it on their sources. Especially the Clinton News Network.

 

[bilby]

Citation needed.

If we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that this absurd claim was true, then it would have been unconstitutional for her to do so, and she would have been prevented from doing it on that basis.

Funny things like that.


And no, I am not asking to provide me with a free platform. I'm simply extremely tired of the mentality of "I don't like what you say as it hurts my feelings in some way and so you have to shut up". It's far too prevalent in American culture, among all groups yelling and screaming at each other.

Why can't these people just learn to just change the channel like they demand everybody else?

They could - But they don't have to, because they have the right to free speech, so they can complain as much as they like, whether or not their complaints are justified. And you are under no obligation to like, nor listen to it; Just as they are under no obligation to like, or listen to, what you have to say. They are free to tell you to shut up; and you are free to ignore that unreasonable demand.

Here is one source:

http://pamelageller.com/2016/08/sharia-prez-hillary-vows-to-shut-down-opposition-websites-if-she-wins.html/

One video for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ESKIOR_LyE

If you distrust the video you can check out the sources mentioned in it.

The self-serving paranoid delusions of Pamela Geller are not evidence that "Hillary took a vow to abolish all independent press if she were to become president".

I am not able to watch video, so I can't respond to your second link, except to say that if it is as high quality as the first, I am glad that I am not in a position to waste my time on it.

Then I don't think i will be able to provide you with something you will accept.

Well, in support of the claim "Hillary took a vow to abolish all independent press if she were to become president", I would accept any evidence that showed that Hillary took a vow to abolish all independent press if she were to become president.

I won't accept anything that doesn't support that claim.

As for me, mainstream news is fake news, so you really won't it on their sources. Especially the Clinton News Network.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here; What most Americans call 'mainstream news' is a collection of US based media, most of which I rarely, if ever, use - not because I believe them to be biased (I have no way to determine that), but because they are largely irrelevant to me as a non-American, and because American media tends to be targeted at an audience with the attention span of a goldfish, and gives me a headache regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of the content.

Anyway, it is irrelevant what sources you do or do not trust - what you need first is a source that supports the claim "Hillary took a vow to abolish all independent press if she were to become president". Only once such a source is located will the question of trust even arise.

The source you provided is an opinion by Pamela Geller (opinion is not evidence), based on an article she attributes to "Blake Neff, Daily Caller," in which Hillary is quoted as specifically wanting to beat Breitbart. As 'Beat' doesn't imply 'Ban', and 'Breitbart' is very clearly a different entity from 'all independent press', what you have here is an opinion that perhaps what Hilary said was not what she meant - in short, an insinuation. Insinuation is not evidence.

 

[Rayschism]

Citation needed.

If we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that this absurd claim was true, then it would have been unconstitutional for her to do so, and she would have been prevented from doing it on that basis.

Funny things like that.


And no, I am not asking to provide me with a free platform. I'm simply extremely tired of the mentality of "I don't like what you say as it hurts my feelings in some way and so you have to shut up". It's far too prevalent in American culture, among all groups yelling and screaming at each other.

Why can't these people just learn to just change the channel like they demand everybody else?

They could - But they don't have to, because they have the right to free speech, so they can complain as much as they like, whether or not their complaints are justified. And you are under no obligation to like, nor listen to it; Just as they are under no obligation to like, or listen to, what you have to say. They are free to tell you to shut up; and you are free to ignore that unreasonable demand.

Here is one source:

http://pamelageller.com/2016/08/sharia-prez-hillary-vows-to-shut-down-opposition-websites-if-she-wins.html/

One video for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ESKIOR_LyE

If you distrust the video you can check out the sources mentioned in it.

The self-serving paranoid delusions of Pamela Geller are not evidence that "Hillary took a vow to abolish all independent press if she were to become president".

I am not able to watch video, so I can't respond to your second link, except to say that if it is as high quality as the first, I am glad that I am not in a position to waste my time on it.

Then I don't think i will be able to provide you with something you will accept.

Well, in support of the claim "Hillary took a vow to abolish all independent press if she were to become president", I would accept any evidence that showed that Hillary took a vow to abolish all independent press if she were to become president.

I won't accept anything that doesn't support that claim.

As for me, mainstream news is fake news, so you really won't it on their sources. Especially the Clinton News Network.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here; What most Americans call 'mainstream news' is a collection of US based media, most of which I rarely, if ever, use - not because I believe them to be biased (I have no way to determine that), but because they are largely irrelevant to me as a non-American, and because American media tends to be targeted at an audience with the attention span of a goldfish, and gives me a headache regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of the content.

Anyway, it is irrelevant what sources you do or do not trust - what you need first is a source that supports the claim "Hillary took a vow to abolish all independent press if she were to become president". Only once such a source is located will the question of trust even arise.

The source you provided is an opinion by Pamela Geller (opinion is not evidence), based on an article she attributes to "Blake Neff, Daily Caller," in which Hillary is quoted as specifically wanting to beat Breitbart. As 'Beat' doesn't imply 'Ban', and 'Breitbart' is very clearly a different entity from 'all independent press', what you have here is an opinion that perhaps what Hilary said was not what she meant - in short, an insinuation. Insinuation is not evidence.

Well, apparently I misspoke, so for now I retract my statement regarding Hillary.

 

[Rhea]

Websites are privately owned media, and can publish (or not publish) whatever they like. Freedom of speech doesn't enter into it.

So then where is freedom of speech?

If everything is owned and private then there really is no such thing as freedom of speech.

This is a great discussion. I'm glad you've asked this question so you can learn the answer. Civic Studies in action. You are lucky to have such a helpful and giving crowd to provide you free instruction on the constitution.

I love this place. <3

 

[Rhea]

As far as impact goes, it goes along with expectations and demands of conformity.

I think there is more truth to this than some on here would care to admit. You may not get prosecuted for your speech but there are absolute consequences in other areas if you fail to conform to the prevailing PC orthodoxy.

That is not, however a violation of constitutional free speech unless it is a government action against you.

If people are threatening to hate you for saying your opinion, it does not stop you from saying it again and again.

You do not have a constitutional right to a delighted audience.

If "prevailing PC orthodoxy" dislikes your message, they have done nothing to you aside from shunning. Which I find is an entirely reasonable response to people who want to use the words nigger and fuck in every day speech. "Blech, I hate the way I feel when I'm around that kind of talk. Gonna avoid that assiduously." Well done, grasshopper. Nice response.

We've been trying (desperately) to teach our son not to wipe his nose, publicly, with his right hand, by lifting his hand palm facing the nose, beginning the wipe at his middle finger and smearing until he gets to his wrist. the "prevailing PC orthodoxy" will certainly punish him for that, you know?

Why can't these people just learn to just change the channel like they demand everybody else?

You say that like there's something wrong with speaking up about community actions that you think harm the community. I find myself often saying, "dear, don't wipe your nose like that and then shake someone's hand. Just don't. It's gross.

 

[TSwizzle]

I think there is more truth to this than some on here would care to admit. You may not get prosecuted for your speech but there are absolute consequences in other areas if you fail to conform to the prevailing PC orthodoxy.

That is not, however a violation of constitutional free speech unless it is a government action against you.

I never said nor implied that it was.

 

[Rayschism]

So then where is freedom of speech?

If everything is owned and private then there really is no such thing as freedom of speech.

This is a great discussion. I'm glad you've asked this question so you can learn the answer. Civic Studies in action. You are lucky to have such a helpful and giving crowd to provide you free instruction on the constitution.

I love this place. <3

How can i learn anything when all people want to do is give a sarcastic remark?

 

[Rhea]

I was not being sarcastic. I am dead serious. "Where is freedom of speech" is a question with an important answer and I cheer your desire to know it. Moreover, I further cheer all of the people who have answered in diverse detail to flesh out a cohesive answer. I love this place.

 

[Rhea]

To sum up:

Freedom of speech is guaranteed when you don't need someone else to pay for, approve, or like what you say and when what you say does not cause danger, crime or violence.


You don't have a guarantee to have an audience. (the government will not force anyone to listen to you)
You don't have a guarantee to have people approve what you say. (the government will not force anyone to cleave to you)
You don't have a guarantee that people will like you and want to hang out with you after you say it. (the government will not force anyone to like or hang out with you)
You don't have a guarantee that someone whose business it is to provide a microphone will let you have it (companies, web sites, billboards) (the government will not force anyone to publish you)
You don't have a guarantee if what you are saying will incite danger, violence or crime (though there is wide leeway in this) (the government will force you to shut up)


The examples and explanations given in above posts are excellent.

 

[TSwizzle]

The government may force you ta bake a cake or rent out a room to people who's lifestyle you disagree with. Failure to comply will have serious ramifications and consequences.