The Fair-Weather Friends of Free Speech

If a person or persons are exercising their right to free speech, and another person or persons that are also exercising their right to free speech are able to shout down or use words of intimidating to cancel out the first person/s free speech, then they have effectively violated the person/s right to free speech and can not claim any "moral" high ground on believing in or protecting free speech. I think this fits LesMisanthrope definition of a fair-weather friend of free speech.

a reply to: LockNLoad

Like a shoutfest?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Yep, and sadly that seems to be the new norm.

2nd

a reply to: LockNLoad

Both are protected by the First Amendment. It seems paradoxical I know.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I agree, but I don't see 1st Amendment protection as paradoxical, I just see it as stupidity on all those trying to shout down others (or using words of intimidation) and yet claiming a belief in free speech, there lays the true paradoxical thinking.

originally posted by: neo96

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.".

Said a very wise man a very long time ago, and pretty damn famous.

That went by the name of Voltaire.

Best quote I've seen in awhile, and perhaps ever.

First, what qualifies as "allowed to criticize" needs to be defined by current standards. Is it that which is covered, thoroughly enough, in the popular/mass (TV) media, or is it that which is discussed on websites like this one, which has had no real sociopolitical impact? Of course only the former defines truly effective criticism. That being the case, the 2 biggest overall areas that are off limits and therefore rule everything and everyone are quite easy to identify: official secrecy and religion(s).

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm not speaking about law.

I am.

Since law governs the land.

I'm speaking about the principle of free speech . . . The right of human beings to hear free speech is included in the arguments in favour of the principle

As a principle, yes, I agree. But principles aren't law, see above. If we seek to instill the philosophical principles of free speech, if that speech includes, philosophically, the right to hear speech, into society (and according to law), then that is the dilemma, and why I mentioned free speech zones: how does one legally reconcile the two, namely: one's legal right to hear in a public forum (without trampling another's right to speech)?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A protest is illegitimate when it censors another

Peaceful protests in of themselves do not censor anything, since the right of the speaker to speak remains, and why protests are protected speech.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well in spirit of free speech i'll say this...ditch the damn thesaurus and call it as you as you see it!

Just because one know big words doesn't mean its necessary to use every antonym or synonym or whatever to describe the freedom of speech. However it is your right to use big words that no one that isn't an Oxford scholar can understand. A Superiority complex make you think that everyone is below you when it's the exact opposite. It's best to get the laymans terms because it's easier to explain.

For instance i could explain to a friend that an oxymoron is a phrase when a verb or noun contradicts another verb or noun, or i could simply say it's when a word and it's opposite meet in the same sentence like 'the sound of silence.' I could give you an astronomical story like 'a N.E.O passed at 0.5 AU while Luna was at it's perigree' but it laymans that means 'an object passed at a distance half the distance between the Earth and the Sun while the moon was at is closest,' but i digress.

Just a bit of constructive criticism (another oxymoron?) but freedom of speech also equals freedom of expression, or are they are they the same thing? peace out.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Uh oh, those big scary words. Here's some constructive criticism for you: buy a dictionary.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: namelesss

I wonder if you'd employ that casuistry while censoring others?

Do you use words like that in your everyday life?
It certainly can't impress...
After having to look up your 'word of the day' I find that you are calling my reasoning specious, sophistry, and you wonder if I'd use such 'poor' logic while censoring others?
Huh?
What 'logic' do you find specious?

Nor would I censor anyone, nor have I said that I would.
So where's the specious argument coming from, now?
I have nothing to defend, on that count, and if you have a problem with my logic, here I am, unimpressed with your fancy jargonistic ad-hominem attack fallacy, so please keep it simple for us simpletons!
Thank you. *__-

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: namelesss

I wonder if you'd employ that casuistry while censoring others?

Do you use words like that in your everyday life?
It certainly can't impress...
After having to look up your 'word of the day' I find that you are calling my reasoning specious, sophistry, and you wonder if I'd use such 'poor' logic while censoring others?
Huh?
What 'logic' do you find specious?

Nor would I censor anyone, nor have I said that I would.
So where's the specious argument coming from, now?
I have nothing to defend, on that count, and if you have a problem with my logic, here I am, unimpressed with your fancy jargonistic ad-hominem attack fallacy, so please keep it simple for us simpletons!
Thank you. *__-

My aim is not to impress but to impugn (grab your dictionary) your arguments. Hence the word "casuistry". You've never heard that word before? I'm sure someone is impressed, somewhere.

Yes you argued against literal application of "freedom", that free speech is not "freely chosen speech", that there are laws against speech therefor it's not free, then tortured the language in order to equate free speech advocacy with religion, and the belief in free speech with "the verminous spread of any 'belief' infection", as if the belief in free speech was the same as the belief in race theory.

I was wondering, do you use this casuistry, this sophistry, to justify censoring others?

People are criticizing big words? Lol.

This is an outlet to convey whatever and however you wish.

There is art within the eloquence, wisdom within the message and purpose within the intentions.

Keep it up Les.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: namelesss

I wonder if you'd employ that casuistry while censoring others?

Do you use words like that in your everyday life?
It certainly can't impress...
After having to look up your 'word of the day' I find that you are calling my reasoning specious, sophistry, and you wonder if I'd use such 'poor' logic while censoring others?
Huh?
What 'logic' do you find specious?

Nor would I censor anyone, nor have I said that I would.
So where's the specious argument coming from, now?
I have nothing to defend, on that count, and if you have a problem with my logic, here I am, unimpressed with your fancy jargonistic ad-hominem attack fallacy, so please keep it simple for us simpletons!
Thank you. *__-

My aim is not to impress but to impugn (grab your dictionary) your arguments.

Of course I had to look it up.
As would anyone here other than yourself, a very elite organization, no doubt.
Calling names does nothing but impugn the name caller, not to mention that it is a fallacy.
If you have a problem of logic/understanding something that I offer, I'm always willing to elucidate, discuss, respectfully, honestly.

Hence the word "casuistry". You've never heard that word before? I'm sure someone is impressed, somewhere.

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public!"
Stop 100 people on the street, anywhere, and 100 people will not have heard of your jargonistic pet word.
Using it here, like this, must make you feel powerful in 'making' intelligent people go scuttling for their dictionary dot whatever.
Or just roll their eyes and move on...

Yes you argued against literal application of "freedom", that free speech is not "freely chosen speech", that there are laws against speech therefor it's not free, then tortured the language in order to equate free speech advocacy with religion, and the belief in free speech with "the verminous spread of any 'belief' infection", as if the belief in free speech was the same as the belief in race theory.

You've still offered nothing at all in rebuttal.
And, yes, symptomatically, a 'belief' in one thing is no different than the pathology of any 'belief'!

I was wondering, do you use this casuistry, this sophistry, to justify censoring others?

You 'box and label' my post, so you can easily dismiss it (like any common racist)?
Far from an intellectual honesty, more like an emotional defensive reaction.
If you are capable of going past your "nyaaah, nyaaah, opening argument, I'm still willing to lead you by the hand into understanding what I offered. If there is any intellectual curiosity after the initial attempted avoidance dance.

If you actually read what I offer, I have never advocated censoring anyone.

And using such an elitist/rare word as a put-down fails in it's entirety if no one knows what the fcuk it means! *__-

a reply to: namelesss

You've still offered nothing at all in rebuttal.
And, yes, symptomatically, a 'belief' in one thing is no different than the pathology of any 'belief'!

I don't have to and I won't bother. It's all relativist nonsense, and for the exact reasons I previously stated.

If you can make your point more clear, I'd be willing to let you lead me through it and even lessen my vocabulary to your own low standards, but given your attempts thus far, I don't see that as possible. But give it a shot.

I TOO believe in free speech...so I FREELY admit it will be A TOTAL violation when I take a flag from you burning it...I INSIST you punish me...A FIRING squad ..OF COURSE!
I would OBVIOUSLY know...no smoking and Tofu for a last meal...

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: namelesss

You've still offered nothing at all in rebuttal.
And, yes, symptomatically, a 'belief' in one thing is no different than the pathology of any 'belief'!

I don't have to and I won't bother.

What, think for yourself?
Whatever.