It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who does free speech help more: liberals or conservatives?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Remember how conservatives treated the Dixie Chicks for openly expressing their views of their hero George W. Bush?




posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:23 AM
link   

ownbestenemy


If people were racist and no one ever heard about it because they were silent, there you go, does racism not exist in this scenario, or is it more dangerous because it is a hidden variable?


I am sorry, I am not following this...


Without an outlet to express their views, people would generally not change their views, but take them to back-alleys and basement meetings, or possibly other states with more conservative leanings.

I have yet to see any evidence of not allowing someone to speak about their opinion changing their opinion, in fact, I see evidence of the opposite - strengthening it.
edit on 05amSun, 05 Jan 2014 04:24:19 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   

rupertg
Remember how conservatives treated the Dixie Chicks for openly expressing their views of their hero George W. Bush?



I know, I was just thinking about that the other day, it was a good comparison to the Duck Dynasty issue and how people in general tend to be hypocrites.



Watch this video - always interesting to see something out of its time.

"I didn't know we live in a time when speaking your mind would bring this much wrath out of people." - CNN Commentator on the Dixie Chicks.

Now I agree with the CNN commentator. And maybe she was right, maybe it has nothing to do with political sides, but the time period.
edit on 05amSun, 05 Jan 2014 04:32:07 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:31 AM
link   

rupertg
Remember how conservatives treated the Dixie Chicks for openly expressing their views of their hero George W. Bush?



The negative comes with the positive though in regard to free speech. The Dixie Chicks exercised their free-speech to be met with those who disagree in the market place of ideas. That is a private matter between citizens; whereas the concept of Free Speech is not between citizens, but rather citizen and their Government.

In the above, the Dixie Chicks enjoyed being able to speak freely against then President Bush without fear of retribution from the State -- their retribution came from the market place in which people freely engage in.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


Yet there are those who relegate certain speech to the "back-alleys" as they, being the priestess of modern time, label such speech as "politically un-correct" or "racist (without knowing the true meaning of the word)", or "insensitive".

The Natural Right to freedom of speech, in terms of say the First Amendment, is in regards to how we speak about our Government. In terms of media, it is how we discuss matters according to how "the powers that be" decide we should discuss the matters; within their terms of course.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Buttonlip
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


So you think freedom of speech means you are above reproach by those that might oppose you? Please show me one single example of liberals shutting down freedom of speech with it actually being the liberals freedom to respond. Meanwhile Christians are boycotting more corporations than any other group for what they are free to say. I will wait, breath held.


Being threatened with physical violence and death for respectfully disagreeing is ok?



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:44 AM
link   

theMediator
reply to post by darkbake
 


The thing is, conservatives really don't understand liberal thinking at all.

Hence, they do their best to grasp liberal thinking with false generalization.
Even a popular anti-progressive thread today clearly shows this.

Ah yes the popular non-liberals are simply too stupid to understand.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Well none of them got kicked off their label for the comments - also, a lot of liberals in the Duck Dynasty instance (although not those with any real status) were talking of real retaliation, not just expressing free speech back. But then there is this comment, which I agree with.


THOMAS ROBERTS: Well as we look at that, because look at this, the Duck Commander company itself, it's worth a reported $400 million through the sale of duck calls, other items that they produce. We've got 11.8 million viewers tuning in for the premiere of season 4 Ladd. So this family earned $200,000 per episode that season and they represent and they speak to a large swath of the country. Primarily the stereotype almost that you just pointed out. But how do you try to combat that? Because, obviously they're within their rights to go ahead and do this. This is all legal.

LADD EVERITT: Well, look, I mean I think the Robertson family is banking on being able to market firearms, you know, by issuing some of these very extreme political comments and hoping that it appeals to basically a swath of far right-wing Americans that they assume are their main customer base. I'm hoping that backfires. When you poll gun owners in this country, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of them are very moderate in their views. And I think many of them will not embrace the type of, you know, misogynist, racist, anti-gay comments that Phil Robertson is making. And my hope here is that this strategy, if it is indeed a strategy, will backfire on them.


That is a quote from Snarky's thread here: MSNBC...

I find that to be a totally safe way of doing things.
edit on 05amSun, 05 Jan 2014 04:45:38 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Buttonlip
 


I find it interesting as you make some poignant points in your first response, specifically this:

Freedom of speech is often abused by those that do not understand it. It only protects you from the government. It does not protect you from boycotts, bosses, contacts, or most importantly, free speech in response.


But then, decide to call out the group that you obviously have no love for by responding to a post with this...


Meanwhile Christians are boycotting more corporations than any other group for what they are free to say.


Interesting is you make the correct connection but because your "cause" was called out, you fell back upon that which you readily chastised.

I know you are protecting your "own kind" here, but this challenge of "...show me one single example of liberals shutting down freedom of speech with it actually being the liberals freedom to respond." is just a battle call, as I would assume you know that "liberals", are just as guilty as "conservatives" when it comes to shutting down speech.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


Freedom of political expression and speech, such as holding racist views and possible acts of persecution that may result are in my view, two different beasts.

One is essential, the other is barbarism.

The question arises, does one necessarily lead to the other, or does the act of holding and expressing those views diminish the impact or severity of any persecution that may arise from those views?

I tend to instinctively feel that if extreme political views are silenced, a tipping point would invariably occur that would eclipse any level of persecution or violence shown otherwise...ultimately at any rate.

Better the devil you know and all that Jazz.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:12 AM
link   
I think who benefits from freedom of speech the most would be answered by asking a different question. Who benefits the least by freedom of speech; the people at the top.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
I think who benefits from freedom of speech the most would be answered by asking a different question. Who benefits the least by freedom of speech; the people at the top.


Unless they manipulate that freedom to their own ends, and ultimately influence the thinking of those further down the ladder...which is pretty much what happens globally and always has done.

This is what so-called 'political correctness' is attempting to do...change peoples thinking away from independent thought, ideas and general perceptions, towards a tailored, pre-packaged greyness of hodge-podge, homogenous sameness (is that even a word?).

But you get the idea i hope.

Either way, we aren't like that naturally, we are not all clones of one another physically or mentally...i don't see the logic in trying to fashion us so...it'll probably all end in tears.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:30 AM
link   
If you want to know who the tyrant is, find out who you aren't allowed to criticize.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:31 AM
link   
in the political sense i try to speak from a place me and my envioment. okay let's see, in a red state i live in a town where it's mostly liberals... i call myself an independant because of how my beliefs in the geopolitical sense. idunno like an independent constitutionalist combo pack. about me: i'm a satanist, pro gun pro free speech pro second amendment, fourth etc. i mean without one amendment and the whole house of cards falls. i am a black metal musician with an early background in early classic rock ranging from megadeth to hendrix, basing my interest in more extreme metal as a reflection of my own semi taboo interests. tremelo picking, gutterals with double hand tapping divebomb solos etc. i think if you are entirely too far left or right youre being taken in by the powers that be. in terms of first amendment, tell me you're offended, i don't care, words are words and if someone lays their hands on me they'll pull back a nub. i believe arresting someone for use of marijuana is belligerent and stupid. you don't like it? try and stop me, it's like stopping someone from whackin it. can't be done it would have been stopped if the drug war was effective but nope the american instinct is too rebellious and wild to be ruled by nobody directly. you have to change their perceptions to affect their will. i mean the left and right enjoy the woods, thriving, doing what they feel so long as their rivals don't cross them. but now because of the popularity contest that is government, libs and cons get their ideals, thought patterns and lifestyles from some preconceived stereotype. democrips rebloodlicans, that's all it is, since no other country is as pro gun yet still civilized as america, and this is my homecountry, i'm digging in and moving fast suntzu style when those who follow orders blindly with no regard for human life need their head cracked from 1k yards away. opinion is just words but when one were to make opinion into a rule that governs what i do, they best have the means to enforce it, and when they do they better make sure i have been turned into liquid and sent to the farthest reaches of the galaxy. i don't even think that could supress me, i am TOO wild!



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


What you fail to recognize is the right wingers that are out in troves, claiming Duck Dynasty's Phil has somehow had his free speech infringed upon because people responded as they did. Why is it not equal?



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04

Buttonlip
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


So you think freedom of speech means you are above reproach by those that might oppose you? Please show me one single example of liberals shutting down freedom of speech with it actually being the liberals freedom to respond. Meanwhile Christians are boycotting more corporations than any other group for what they are free to say. I will wait, breath held.


Being threatened with physical violence and death for respectfully disagreeing is ok?


I never said it any of that was ok. Where did you read me saying that? My issue is that constitutional free speech is a government issue. Why was it ok to send death threats to the dixie chicks? Conservatives supported that just fine. If you actually read what I wrote, I speak of boycotts and equal responses. I never condoned death threats but still those are not constitutional issues. Free speech does not mean free from negative feedback.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The problem is that we are living in a society where true depth of thought and true intellectual debate and discussion have been tossed by the wayside. We are taught that if things feel good or feel right, then they must be right, but that's an entirely emotional way of doing and being and it doesn't allow or train a person to open the door to logical analysis.

It also opens the door to the sorts of things we see today with each side simply seeking to either shout the other down or shut the other up. If they're not speaking anymore for whatever reason, then I must have won. Right?

It's depressing to watch YouTube clips of so-called debates such as these where one side can't get a word in edgewise because the other side won't shut up and watch the comments. Some people realize what's going on and call it like they see it while too many think that simply shouting down or drowning out your opponent means you somehow "pwnd" them.

Thank back to your thread on chimps and peer pressure. You posted the pyramid of needs. Most people live in the emotional, herd-following, peer oriented level with very few ever reaching true self-actualization. I submit that before the touchy feely '60s movements and self-esteem, we had more people reaching self-actualization and capable of real debate and thought. Today, we're simply seeing narrow thought tribes brow-beating others into their narrow thought corrals without anyone really analyzing what it all means on any deep level.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   

ownbestenemy
reply to post by Buttonlip
 


I find it interesting as you make some poignant points in your first response, specifically this:

Freedom of speech is often abused by those that do not understand it. It only protects you from the government. It does not protect you from boycotts, bosses, contacts, or most importantly, free speech in response.


But then, decide to call out the group that you obviously have no love for by responding to a post with this...


Meanwhile Christians are boycotting more corporations than any other group for what they are free to say.


Interesting is you make the correct connection but because your "cause" was called out, you fell back upon that which you readily chastised.

I know you are protecting your "own kind" here, but this challenge of "...show me one single example of liberals shutting down freedom of speech with it actually being the liberals freedom to respond." is just a battle call, as I would assume you know that "liberals", are just as guilty as "conservatives" when it comes to shutting down speech.




Yet you provide no example?????
What is your point?
What exactly is "my cause?"
You seem to assume a lot.
My point is when right wing Christian groups call for boycotts and protest, it is all good and fine. When anyone else does the same, they are accused of threatening free speech. I am simply pointing out a double standard in the US. Do you have an actual counter point or do you just not like what I said?



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


Any inhibition of free speech hurts everyone.

Free expression in thoughts, words, music, poetry, internet, paper, dance, opinions; is crucial if were are to grow as a society.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by rockoperawriter
 


It's depressing that you call Megadeth "early classic rock." To me that's the Beatles or The Beach Boys.

edit on 5-1-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join