The Fair-Weather Friends of Free Speech

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Okay so you spoke. You said you hate blue people. My turn right? Or do I not get one if I'm a true believer in free speech?

a reply to: Kali74

Okay so you spoke. You said you hate blue people. My turn right? Or do I not get one if I'm a true believer in free speech?

Absolutely. Free speech begets more free speech.

By the way, I love blue people.

a reply to: Kali74

Let's put it this way, do you think violent riots are an appropriate reaction to someone's words?

Because that is exactly what happened from these 'protesters.'

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In what ways do you see me, for example, not supporting free speech then?

a reply to: rockintitz

I don't believe in violence, there is no right to commit violence.

'Oh they are free to speak somewhere else.'

I love it.
What a fun thread.
Thank you Misanthrope.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Kali74

Let's put it this way, do you think violent riots are an appropriate reaction to someone's words?

Because that is exactly what happened from these 'protesters.'

Only people that live in glass houses dislike the free and open exchange of ideals.

It comes down to their ideology is so insecure it can't handle competition.

a reply to: butcherguy

I was being facetious.

a reply to: Kali74

In what ways do you see me, for example, not supporting free speech then?

I'm not sure I said you didn't, but my reasons as to why fair-weather supporters of free speech do not support free speech is outlined in my original post.

For one, free speech is a universal human right, and it applies to everyone, not just those who have that right protected by their government. Two, equating free speech to the laws that protect it allows one to dismiss the universal rights of others in a fit of relativism. And also, the notion that free speech is only defended or protected by the government, and no other entity, is dangerous.

a reply to: Kali74

Ok, so you do have a line.

I personally wouldn't protest someone just because their beliefs clashed with mine. I'm not saying they don't have the right to, just that it is hypocritical.

And cowardly.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: butcherguy

I was being facetious.

I had no idea that you were.

My apology.

a reply to: rockintitz

Ok, so you do have a line.

I personally wouldn't protest someone just because their beliefs clashed with mine. I'm not saying they don't have the right to, just that it is hypocritical.

And cowardly.

The Heckler's Veto is a common trend among censors, and is rising in frequency.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Kali74

That's not off topic.

The first was written by the same sort that wrote the declaration.

They are synomous with each other.

It's quite clear:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth,the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

www.ushistory.org...

ALL men are created equal.

ALL men are endowed by the creator by inalienable rights.

The laws of Nature and GOD entitlethem.

Freedom of speech.

Government ONLY has authority so long as it's the consent of the governed.

Infringing A right is verboten.

Under EQUALITY of people.

If Rights are "endowed by the Creator" what about the rights of atheists that would assert that a Creator does not exist and therefore cannot be the source of anything?

Surely you would agree that atheists are entitled to free speech, correct?

Another problem with relying on the document as written as the source of the Rights mentioned is that is only applies to "All MEN are created equal". Do you agree that women are entitled as well? They are excluded in the document.

If however you believe that Free Speech is a basic Human Right, you don't have to rely on "The State" or "A Creator".

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

As in government?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: rockintitz

Ok, so you do have a line.

I personally wouldn't protest someone just because their beliefs clashed with mine. I'm not saying they don't have the right to, just that it is hypocritical.

And cowardly.

The Heckler's Veto is a common trend among censors, and is rising in frequency.

I had to look that up. Yes, you do see that a lot from colleges nowadays.

Which unsurprisingly lean left by a wide margin. And the speakers always tend to lean right.

But I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me how partisan I'm being.

a reply to: Leonidas

If Rights are "endowed by the Creator" what about the rights of atheists that would assert that a Creator does not exist and therefore cannot be the source of anything?

What about them ?

They are afforded the same rights.

Doesn't matter i they believe or not.

The problem is why we are even talking about this in the first place.

The founding fathers likened our alienable rights to the divine for a specific reason.

For man to keeps it's grubby little paws off, but the current politic climate has become a cancer of the soul.

Rights don't mean anything more.

People we don't like get their rights infringed whenever the mob feels froggie.

Which should not be happening.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Is protesting outside an Anne Coulter speaking event being repugnant of free speech?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Is protesting outside an Anne Coulter speaking event being repugnant of free speech?

What else would you call organizing a mob because of what someone might say?

a reply to: rockintitz

I had to look that up. Yes, you do see that a lot from colleges nowadays.

Which unsurprisingly lean left by a wide margin. And the speakers always tend to lean right.

But I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me how partisan I'm being.

Perhaps the protesting aspect is. But disinviting guests due to fears of violence and protest occurs against both right and left-wing speakers. Though dis-invitation and de-platforming happens from the left of the speaker for the majority of cases, dis-invitations from the right of the speaker is not uncommon.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

It's okay Neo, babble is protected speech.

Uh-huh, if speech is free, why does "babble" need to be protected and why do we have protected classes of speech at all. One would think this unnecessary in a society where it is free.