The Fair-Weather Friends of Free Speech

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The 'Muh Constitutionalist" say that the constitution protect you from the government, but they leave out that it doesn't protect you from each other, that wasn't what it was designed for

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The 'Muh Constitutionalist" say that the constitution protect you from the government, but they leave out that it doesn't protect you from each other, that wasn't what it was designed for

I cannot disagree with you there, but as the world's oldest national constitution still in use, it has a track-record that is undeniable. It definitely isn't a code of ethics, but the principles it attempts to protect are the tried and true principles of open societies.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No, because we are not the Government, we also don't submit to these oppressive imposed morality/ethics based on 'Law-And-Order' 'Religion' 'The Constitution'.

but, if you are playing by the Constitution, again, that protects you from the government, not each other, you are leaving out consequences and repercussions from your words/actions

So you want to live in a place that more or less resembles Somalia?

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No, because we are not the Government, we also don't submit to these oppressive imposed morality/ethics based on 'Law-And-Order' 'Religion' 'The Constitution'.

but, if you are playing by the Constitution, again, that protects you from the government, not each other, you are leaving out consequences and repercussions from your words/actions

Nothing is imposing any ethics. You can disagree with them. But dismissing the collective wisdom of centuries due to whim and resentment is just as dogmatic and foolish as believing them without consideration. A simple look at their results should be enough to convince even the most ardent nihilist, unless he eschews the principles of reason and evidence with everything else.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
The But Brigade

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Spell out what you want people to do regarding free speech. Not protest speakers at universities? Not tell someone they're being an -ist? What?

Isn't the act of protesting in itself an attempt to silence the speaker? If you merely believe the person wrong in their views why wouldn't you just stage your own forum to express your own supposedly superior philosophy, instead of disrupting another's with shouts and intimidation? Unless you truly believe the average person is too stupid and gullible to think for themselves - which to me seems to be the case.

a reply to: Kali74

I think he is speaking to the principle that prompted the first amendment: we are each given a voice to use.

It all stems from natural rights. Or, you can infer how things should be by the way nature designed it.

a reply to: underpass61

Protest is literally free speech.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Exactly, one doesn't supersede another.

a reply to: Kali74

That's not exactly correct.

Your right to speak freely comes from whatever/whoever created this planet. If government chooses to tie their own hands in regard to this, then that is just an extra step to make it officially recognized.

Personally, i do not wait for government permission, or a cessation of government meddling, before I act under my own volition. I typically do whatever I want regardless of law.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Right but apparently we aren't talking about government and free speech. The premise ( I think ) is that protest, certain kinds of criticism of words spoken are attempts at censoring another person's free speech. I disagree, since my criticism or protest is also free speech.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SirHardHarry

Yes sorry, I'm not American.

I do not reconcile it. My right to hear what I want is not up to you or any law.

Then you have to deal with not being able to hear something you wish while not trampling others' rights to speech, unless you desire to get the judiciary involved.

a reply to: Kali74

I can't/won't speak for the OP....but his general stance is that words are great. violence is not.

I think he is also saying that if you use words only, the ramifications should be rather small. It is not "freedom of speech" if people still retaliate against you for saying what you say.

I spent an hour having a knock down drag out with my boss and one of the folks who supervise my work. When it was done, we all hugged and went on about our day. I personally still love the man, and think highly of him. Since im still employed, i assume he feels the same way. That is "freedom of speech": i could talk to him without fear of reprisal. And he can do the same with me.

a reply to: underpass61

Isn't the act of protesting in itself an attempt to silence the speaker? If you merely believe the person wrong in their views why wouldn't you just stage your own forum to express your own supposedly superior philosophy, instead of disrupting another's with shouts and intimidation? Unless you truly believe the average person is too stupid and gullible to think for themselves - which to me seems to be the case.

Yes it is. In free speech circles it's known as the Heckler's Veto. Shouting a speaker down, blocking entry, or otherwise threatening the speaker and listeners, is often construed to be free speech. Of course, as you note, there are much better and civil ways of going about expressing disagreement than engaging in mob threat and disruption.

a reply to: SirHardHarry

Then you have to deal with not being able to hear something you wish while not trampling others' rights to speech, unless you desire to get the judiciary involved.

I'm not sure I understand your point. How is my wanting to hear something I wish trampling another's right to speech?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Unfortunately...."the heckler's veto" is what passes for "peer review", mostly by people with financial interest in a status quo.

Probably mostly because psychology is a liberal art that likes to play like its a science. But also due to lobbies creating official hurdles. Its how sugar got a free pass while fat and salt were villified.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Unfortunately...."the heckler's veto" is what passes for "peer review", mostly by people with financial interest in a status quo.

Probably mostly because psychology is a liberal art that likes to play like its a science.

And it always seems it is the worst ideas that require the most censorship of their critics.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SirHardHarry

Then you have to deal with not being able to hear something you wish while not trampling others' rights to speech, unless you desire to get the judiciary involved.

I'm not sure I understand your point. How is my wanting to hear something I wish trampling another's right to speech?

Again with the sophistry and semantics.

One argument in this thread (by you) was people's supposed "right" to hear a speaker and that supposed "right" being denied by protesters who "prevented" said speech from being heard.

a reply to: ketsuko

How did you get Somalia from that state

False Equivalence

a reply to: SirHardHarry

Again with the sophistry and semantics.

One argument in this thread (by you) was people's supposed "right" to hear a speaker and that supposed "right" being denied by protesters who "prevented" said speech from being heard.

Again with the empty and shallow argument. What is your point? is my question. Or can you make one?