Sasha Baron Cohen Gets Serious

[Trausti]

Free speech is a myth. It doesn't exist except as within a larger domain of human behavior we simply call speech.

Speech certainly exists, but not all speech and expression should be considered free speech. This is because speech is a human behavior and societies certainly regulate human behavior deeming some to be repugnant and unlawful while allowing other behaviors to occur because they are deemed harmonious, productive and constructive.

Speech being a behavior, free speech is whatever we make it, but not all speech is "free" speech." For a person advocating free speech in the context it is being advocated here and perhaps widely - and wrongfully - understood, it certainly should be regulated. Otherwise we may as well consider the acts of rape or murder as free speech.

Rape is speech? Hello, Mr. Strawman.

 

[Elixir]

Rape is speech?

No, MONEY is speech, according to the Rethuglican Bible, Mr. Strawman.

 

[Trausti]

Rape is speech?

No, MONEY is speech, according to the Rethuglican Bible, Mr. Strawman.

Yes, the editorial column in the newspaper and commentary on a cable news show are speech.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Free speech is a myth. It doesn't exist except as within a larger domain of human behavior we simply call speech.

Speech certainly exists, but not all speech and expression should be considered free speech. This is because speech is a human behavior and societies certainly regulate human behavior deeming some to be repugnant and unlawful while allowing other behaviors to occur because they are deemed harmonious, productive and constructive.

Speech being a behavior, free speech is whatever we make it, but not all speech is "free" speech." For a person advocating free speech in the context it is being advocated here and perhaps widely - and wrongfully - understood, it certainly should be regulated. Otherwise we may as well consider the acts of rape or murder as free speech.

Rape is speech? Hello, Mr. Strawman.

No. Rape is a behavior. Threatening to rape someone is speech, but it isn't free speech to my knowledge anymore than is threatening to kill someone. All speech is also a human behavior.

 

[Elixir]

Rape is speech?

No, MONEY is speech, according to the Rethuglican Bible, Mr. Strawman.

Yes, the editorial column in the newspaper and commentary on a cable news show are speech.

...as are 7-8 figure "donations" to superpacs, laundered Russian funds and ... (wait for it) ... Bloomberg's billions. I hope he loses the nomination but proves his stated intent ("defeat Trump at all cost") by donating say, 10% of his personal net worth (>$5,000,000,000.00) to the DNC. That would almost certainly cause the Rethuglicans, hypocrites that they are, to change their tune about the SCOTUS Citizens United decision they so gleefully embraced.

 

[Trausti]

Yes, the editorial column in the newspaper and commentary on a cable news show are speech.

...as are 7-8 figure "donations" to superpacs, laundered Russian funds and ... (wait for it) ... Bloomberg's billions. I hope he loses the nomination but proves his stated intent ("defeat Trump at all cost") by donating say, 10% of his personal net worth (>$5,000,000,000.00) to the DNC. That would almost certainly cause the Rethuglicans, hypocrites that they are, to change their tune about the SCOTUS Citizens United decision they so gleefully embraced.

You are aware that newspapers and cable channels are corporations?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I guess the right wing has won. They couldn't get religion in the science classroom to control our future generations, but that's moot. They can control the vote by freely spreading misinformation to the masses by other means. There's nothing we can do about it.

 

[Trausti]

I guess the right wing has won. They couldn't get religion in the science classroom to control our future generations, but that's moot. They can control the vote by freely spreading misinformation to the masses by other means. There's nothing we can do about it.

And who gets to decide what is “misinformation”? Surely, atheists and agnostics spread misinformation about God? Why allow that? But to note the obvious, if your position on whatever issue cannot withstand public scrutiny, maybe it is you who is misinformed.

 

[Bomb#20]

Speech being a behavior...

There was a time not so long ago when speech was a behavior. Then a conservative SCOTUS deemed money speech.

Never happened. It's a figment of the pro-censorship crowd's collective imagination. The conservative SCOTUS pretty explicitly deemed money not speech. The conservative SCOTUS upheld your right to give a politician your speech, but they didn't uphold your right to give her your money. They also upheld your right to speak without identifying the speaker, but they didn't uphold your right to spend money on speech without identifying the spender.

 

[Bomb#20]

I remember a time when it was the left that championed free speech while the religious right sought to limit it. What the hell happened?

What the hell do you think happened? The left started winning the political fights over who gets to be the censor and who gets to be the censored. Of course they stopped championing free speech. Anybody who expected better from them was a damn fool.

You are aware that newspapers and cable channels are corporations?

What do the censorship supporters care? See above. They don't think they need constitutional protection for their own side's ability to get its message out, because they have legislative protection for it, because they're the censors. They get to decide who is subject to the censorship laws, and who gets exemptions from them.

(B) The term "expenditure" does not include-

(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

- 52 USC 30101 (Source)​

The newspapers and cable channels got an exemption. What a surprise.

 

[Half-Life]

I guess the right wing has won. They couldn't get religion in the science classroom to control our future generations, but that's moot. They can control the vote by freely spreading misinformation to the masses by other means. There's nothing we can do about it.

And who gets to decide what is “misinformation”? Surely, atheists and agnostics spread misinformation about God? Why allow that? But to note the obvious, if your position on whatever issue cannot withstand public scrutiny, maybe it is you who is misinformed.

This actually made me think about something.

When people criticize Islam, they get called, "Islamophobic!"

When people criticize trans people, they get called, "Transphobic!"

When people criticize gay people, they get called, "Homophobic!"

When people criticize atheists, they get called, "Bigot!" because "Atheophobe" doesn't sound as catchy I guess.

Yet, when people criticize Christianity, no one says, "Christphobe!!!!" What a blatant double standard. Christianity can get criticized by people all they want. Comedians can make jokes about it, TV shows, can bash Christians, but South Park comes along and makes fun of trans women in sports and all of a sudden it's "OMG! How offensive!!!!"

Where were all these leftists calling for people to stop making fun of Christians because it's offensive to them? All we ever heard was, "HAHA! Keep crying you babies!!!!" But, for some reason that answer is not appropriate for any other group that gets made fun of. How many TV shows bash Islam? You won't see it. Leftists would say, "It's offensive to make fun of someone's religion!!" But, not if it's Christianity!!

Can someone explain this atrocious nonsensical double standard?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I guess the right wing has won. They couldn't get religion in the science classroom to control our future generations, but that's moot. They can control the vote by freely spreading misinformation to the masses by other means. There's nothing we can do about it.

And who gets to decide what is “misinformation”? Surely, atheists and agnostics spread misinformation about God? Why allow that? But to note the obvious, if your position on whatever issue cannot withstand public scrutiny, maybe it is you who is misinformed.

Public scrutiny? Breitbart isn't public scrutiny. 8chan isn't public scrutiny. I even told you won. We simply don't have the money to fight monied interests controlling the information flow. And if we did have the money, we'd be part of the problem. So you win. I give up. No need for more strawmen. Just say thank you and keep up the right wing propaganda. You win.

 

[Half-Life]

I guess the right wing has won. They couldn't get religion in the science classroom to control our future generations, but that's moot. They can control the vote by freely spreading misinformation to the masses by other means. There's nothing we can do about it.

And who gets to decide what is “misinformation”? Surely, atheists and agnostics spread misinformation about God? Why allow that? But to note the obvious, if your position on whatever issue cannot withstand public scrutiny, maybe it is you who is misinformed.

Public scrutiny? Breitbart isn't public scrutiny. 8chan isn't public scrutiny. I even told you won. We simply don't have the money to fight monied interests controlling the information flow. And if we did have the money, we'd be part of the problem. So you win. I give up. No need for more strawmen. Just say thank you and keep up the right wing propaganda. You win.

What do you mean you don't have the money to control information flow? Colleges are leftist indoctrination machines. They hate conservative thought. Transgender people, gays, Islam are all getting pushed on us by the leftist elites. TV shows are leftist, talk shows are leftist, basically all media is leftist. Leftists are never censored the way conservatives are. Gay pride parades are done in leftist states. Leftists have all the power in America. Seems to me any jokes about the left is "punching up" considering they have all the power.

The most oppressed group today are straight while Christian males, which happen to be conservatives. If white people say, "We don't agree blacks suffer all this racism," we get told to "Shut up! You're white! You don't understand!" But if a white person agrees blacks suffer all this racism, they get praised for speaking up about the black community. They don't get told to "Shut up! You're white!" If a white person's opinion agrees with minorities, then they love it! If a white person's opinion differs from minorities, they get told to shut up and check their privilege.

Pretty sick, right?

 

[Elixir]

Social media is just that. People socializing with each other.

If you start exchanging recipes for cakes, cookies and fragmentation bombs you can stay socially engaged for hours. Of course that would be wrong, but it shouldn't be illegal, right?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Public scrutiny? Breitbart isn't public scrutiny. 8chan isn't public scrutiny. I even told you won. We simply don't have the money to fight monied interests controlling the information flow. And if we did have the money, we'd be part of the problem. So you win. I give up. No need for more strawmen. Just say thank you and keep up the right wing propaganda. You win.

What do you mean you don't have the money to control information flow? Colleges are leftist indoctrination machines. They hate conservative thought. Transgender people, gays, Islam are all getting pushed on us by the leftist elites. TV shows are leftist, talk shows are leftist, basically all media is leftist. Leftists are never censored the way conservatives are. Gay pride parades are done in leftist states. Leftists have all the power in America. Seems to me any jokes about the left is "punching up" considering they have all the power.

The most oppressed group today are straight while Christian males, which happen to be conservatives. If white people say, "We don't agree blacks suffer all this racism," we get told to "Shut up! You're white! You don't understand!" But if a white person agrees blacks suffer all this racism, they get praised for speaking up about the black community. They don't get told to "Shut up! You're white!" If a white person's opinion agrees with minorities, then they love it! If a white person's opinion differs from minorities, they get told to shut up and check their privilege.

Pretty sick, right?

The fact that you believe all that proves my point.

 

[Half-Life]

Public scrutiny? Breitbart isn't public scrutiny. 8chan isn't public scrutiny. I even told you won. We simply don't have the money to fight monied interests controlling the information flow. And if we did have the money, we'd be part of the problem. So you win. I give up. No need for more strawmen. Just say thank you and keep up the right wing propaganda. You win.

What do you mean you don't have the money to control information flow? Colleges are leftist indoctrination machines. They hate conservative thought. Transgender people, gays, Islam are all getting pushed on us by the leftist elites. TV shows are leftist, talk shows are leftist, basically all media is leftist. Leftists are never censored the way conservatives are. Gay pride parades are done in leftist states. Leftists have all the power in America. Seems to me any jokes about the left is "punching up" considering they have all the power.

The most oppressed group today are straight while Christian males, which happen to be conservatives. If white people say, "We don't agree blacks suffer all this racism," we get told to "Shut up! You're white! You don't understand!" But if a white person agrees blacks suffer all this racism, they get praised for speaking up about the black community. They don't get told to "Shut up! You're white!" If a white person's opinion agrees with minorities, then they love it! If a white person's opinion differs from minorities, they get told to shut up and check their privilege.

Pretty sick, right?

The fact that you believe all that proves my point.

You can't debunk the truth.

 

[Trausti]

I guess the right wing has won. They couldn't get religion in the science classroom to control our future generations, but that's moot. They can control the vote by freely spreading misinformation to the masses by other means. There's nothing we can do about it.

And who gets to decide what is “misinformation”? Surely, atheists and agnostics spread misinformation about God? Why allow that? But to note the obvious, if your position on whatever issue cannot withstand public scrutiny, maybe it is you who is misinformed.

Public scrutiny? Breitbart isn't public scrutiny. 8chan isn't public scrutiny. I even told you won. We simply don't have the money to fight monied interests controlling the information flow. And if we did have the money, we'd be part of the problem. So you win. I give up. No need for more strawmen. Just say thank you and keep up the right wing propaganda. You win.

Public scrutiny is simply allowing opposing viewpoints to be aired. This is not about right vs. left. It's about freedom vs. authoritarians. I want free speech for everyone, not just those who agree with me.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I guess the right wing has won. They couldn't get religion in the science classroom to control our future generations, but that's moot. They can control the vote by freely spreading misinformation to the masses by other means. There's nothing we can do about it.

And who gets to decide what is “misinformation”? Surely, atheists and agnostics spread misinformation about God? Why allow that? But to note the obvious, if your position on whatever issue cannot withstand public scrutiny, maybe it is you who is misinformed.

This actually made me think about something.

When people criticize Islam, they get called, "Islamophobic!"

When people criticize trans people, they get called, "Transphobic!"

When people criticize gay people, they get called, "Homophobic!"

When people criticize atheists, they get called, "Bigot!" because "Atheophobe" doesn't sound as catchy I guess.

Yet, when people criticize Christianity, no one says, "Christphobe!!!!" What a blatant double standard. Christianity can get criticized by people all they want. Comedians can make jokes about it, TV shows, can bash Christians, but South Park comes along and makes fun of trans women in sports and all of a sudden it's "OMG! How offensive!!!!"

Where were all these leftists calling for people to stop making fun of Christians because it's offensive to them? All we ever heard was, "HAHA! Keep crying you babies!!!!" But, for some reason that answer is not appropriate for any other group that gets made fun of. How many TV shows bash Islam? You won't see it. Leftists would say, "It's offensive to make fun of someone's religion!!" But, not if it's Christianity!!

Can someone explain this atrocious nonsensical double standard?

I will absolutely say that I believe in Freedom of Speech. And it's codified in our constitution and held up many times in the supreme court (sorry TGG!). But what you are asking for is protection for your speech. There is no law against someone being offended by your speech or mine. Christianity gets called out because it is the dominant religion in the US and causes so much harm. I criticize Islam all the time. It's no different from Christianity. However, it is a very minority religion in the US. It doesn't have much of an effect on most Americans.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Public scrutiny? Breitbart isn't public scrutiny. 8chan isn't public scrutiny. I even told you won. We simply don't have the money to fight monied interests controlling the information flow. And if we did have the money, we'd be part of the problem. So you win. I give up. No need for more strawmen. Just say thank you and keep up the right wing propaganda. You win.

Public scrutiny is simply allowing opposing viewpoints to be aired. This is not about right vs. left. It's about freedom vs. authoritarians. I want free speech for everyone, not just those who agree with me.

This is not about free speech. It's about propaganda on privately owned (but publicly aired) platforms.

 

[ruby sparks]

I guess the right wing has won. They couldn't get religion in the science classroom to control our future generations, but that's moot. They can control the vote by freely spreading misinformation to the masses by other means. There's nothing we can do about it.

And who gets to decide what is “misinformation”? Surely, atheists and agnostics spread misinformation about God? Why allow that? But to note the obvious, if your position on whatever issue cannot withstand public scrutiny, maybe it is you who is misinformed.

This actually made me think about something.

When people criticize Islam, they get called, "Islamophobic!"

When people criticize trans people, they get called, "Transphobic!"

When people criticize gay people, they get called, "Homophobic!"

When people criticize atheists, they get called, "Bigot!" because "Atheophobe" doesn't sound as catchy I guess.

Yet, when people criticize Christianity, no one says, "Christphobe!!!!" What a blatant double standard. Christianity can get criticized by people all they want. Comedians can make jokes about it, TV shows, can bash Christians, but South Park comes along and makes fun of trans women in sports and all of a sudden it's "OMG! How offensive!!!!"

Where were all these leftists calling for people to stop making fun of Christians because it's offensive to them? All we ever heard was, "HAHA! Keep crying you babies!!!!" But, for some reason that answer is not appropriate for any other group that gets made fun of. How many TV shows bash Islam? You won't see it. Leftists would say, "It's offensive to make fun of someone's religion!!" But, not if it's Christianity!!

Can someone explain this atrocious nonsensical double standard?

You do have a partial point. I think it is true that more latitude is generally allowed when it comes to criticism of something that is predominant/dominant in a given society. What you bring up could also be said about, for example, straight white men. Possibly also wealthy or powerful people.

As I understand it, the broad rationale behind it is that certain groups or minorities, who tend to be more vulnerable than other groups, and face more actual threat from endemic discrimination or other unfairnesses, get more protections.

As a straight, white man, I accept this situation. I have certain social privileges in my country which buffer me from the worst implications and outcomes of criticism. Even if I am a poor straight white man, I still have some privileges, relatively speaking, all other things being equal, though obviously I could have fewer in total than a wealthy and powerful transgender black woman, for instance.

Of course, it depends on the particular context, and it depends on the degree. Straight white men, or Christians (in the 'west'), are not fair game for any verbal or written attack. There is a reasonable limit, at which point they get better protections, formal and informal.

So on a more positive note, if you wait, Christianity in the 'west' may get more and more protections as time goes by, because it's in decline and may eventually be deemed a protected minority. Don't give up hope just yet, of getting better treatment.