Who does free speech help more: liberals or conservatives?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Agreed. I could never understand why conservatives (mostly Republicans) get so hung up whether Obama may or may not be a Muslim. It's not like there is a Constitutional law forbidding Muslims to be the President so even if he is Muslim, he isn't violating any laws.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


It's always been confusing to me too :-)

Apparently there's a form of accepted social segregation when it comes to what constitutes freedom of belief - you can believe whatever you want to believe - as long as you stay away from all the important stuff

How long do you think it will be before we will elect a president in this country that doesn't at least to pretend to believe in god?

reply to post by ketsuko


Somehow, and I'm not sure how because it's huge - I missed this post :-)

Thank you - now we're talking

Back with more in a bit

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


An atheist president? Heaven forbid! I'd think the red U.S. would up and implode from the blasphemy their heads are trying to wrap around.

reply to post by darkbake


Perhaps you do not remember. Homeland Security and The Partiot Act were not instituted under the Obama Administration. I wish he would have destroyed it but he cannot. It would take congress.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by BrianFlanders

 

More like: Conservatives make stuff up. Liberals will attack your character. Neither address the real points.

I guess you have a point there. The point I was trying to make, however, was that I'd rather argue with a conservative any day than a liberal. I wasn't trying to make a statement about who is right or wrong. If I'm arguing with them, they're always wrong in my book regardless of their politics. I've argued (to no end) with both sides. I thought I was a liberal until Obama was elected. I was quite stunned by the way I was treated by former friends when I started to criticize him. These were people who knew that I had been completely opposed to Bush. They had seen the things I wrote about him. They knew I wasn't a conservative but they attacked me the same way they'd attack any conservative.

Anytime I enter into a political argument, I will instantly be called a conservative (and sometimes a racist) by people who don't even know me.

Anyway, now I don't even know what I am but I'm definitely not a liberal.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


It's not about being a member of the communist party or a muslim, it's about who is those things openly.

Ellison is an open muslim. That's fine. We all know the score, and he gets elected being one. I don't have an issue with that if his constituents don't. I actually have an easier time with him than I would with an open atheist because he at least believes in a higher power and would have an easier time explaining to me the concept of our basic, unalienable rights deriving from said higher power and thus not being the province of government to give or take. I have yet to find the atheist who can give me a satisfactory argument on that score.

As for socialists in congress, Bernie Saunders is also openly a socialist and got elected as such. Again, he is honest about what he is and gets votes. His constituents are OK with it, so that's their choice.

The communists in the government during McCarthy's time were NOT open communists. Had they been, they would not have been there given the Cold War. You can argue that it's discriminatory, but there is national security to think about. Why would you allow someone who sympathizes with our enemy to work in a security sensitive position? It makes no sense. Do the Islamic regimes of the Middle East allow Jews to serve openly in their governments or vice versa? If not, why not? Would China allow an American to serve in their party government or vice versa? Why not? Be sensible.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


You don't think we have one now?

reply to post by ketsuko


I actually don't care what he is and neither should anyone else for that matter (Separation of Church and State and all that jazz). He claims to be Christian, so I'm going to say he is Christian. Whatever he is in private is between him and I guess God. His public persona though says he is Christian. This seems to help the red U.S. sleep at night. I mean why else would they get all upset on the president possibly being a Muslim? What I'm getting at is a president willingly having a public persona that is actively atheist. Keep in mind that the first non-Protestant president was a HUGE deal back in the 60's and he was only RCC.

Spiramirabilis

Buttonlip

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.

Huh????? The people at the top benefit least? Please explain.

Free speech is often criticism

Yes, I know that but that does nothing to explain the statement about people at the top. Want to try again or just let the poster answer for themself?

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ketsuko

 

I actually don't care what he is. He claims to be Christian, so I'm going to say he is Christian. Whatever he is in private is between him and I guess God. His public persona though says he is Christian. This seems to help the red U.S. sleep at night. I mean why else would they get all upset on the president possibly being a Muslim? What I'm getting at is a president willingly having a public persona that is actively atheist. Keep in mind that the first non-Protestant president was a HUGE deal back in the 60's and he was only RCC.

I've been watching him, and I think he is whatever he thinks it's politically expedient to be. But I don't think he was any real faith of any sort himself.

If there was no doubt about his faith, then these rumors about it wouldn't have lasted as long as they have.

reply to post by ketsuko


So? Now explain to me how his faith is relevant to... ANYTHING regarding government. I mean it is so bad that a closet atheist (allegedly) has to hide his faith using political maneuvering just so he can stay acceptable in the public's eyes.

beezzer

Buttonlip

beezzer
reply to post by ketsuko

 

True free speech is defending someone you disagree with.

That makes ZERO SENSE. I can only be speaking freely if I am defending someone I do not agree with????? What is Phil doing then? Who is he defending? Free speech is expressing yourself, not comparing your thoughts to those of another. How many of your posts are free speech and how many are you defending someone you do not agree with? You logic is lost on me.

And I will defend your right to post the above.

That is really sweet of you but it does nothing to explain the claim that the only free speech is defense of other speech. The speech being defended was not free speech?

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ketsuko

 

So? Now explain to me how his faith is relevant to... ANYTHING regarding government. I mean it is so bad that a closet atheist (allegedly) has to hide his faith using political maneuvering just so he can stay acceptable in the public's eyes.

edit on 5-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

I know I'm more comfortable with someone who believes in the concept that our unalienable rights derive from a higher power than man. As I mentioned above, I have yet to find the atheist who can articulate a satisfactory substitute argument for why they should be sacrosanct and not government's to attempt to give or take.

It is clear to me that Obama at least doesn't have the hang up which does argue for his lack of faith.

Buttonlip

beezzer

Buttonlip

beezzer
reply to post by ketsuko

 

True free speech is defending someone you disagree with.

That makes ZERO SENSE. I can only be speaking freely if I am defending someone I do not agree with????? What is Phil doing then? Who is he defending? Free speech is expressing yourself, not comparing your thoughts to those of another. How many of your posts are free speech and how many are you defending someone you do not agree with? You logic is lost on me.

And I will defend your right to post the above.

That is really sweet of you but it does nothing to explain the claim that the only free speech is defense of other speech. The speech being defended was not free speech?

If you believe in free speech, then you believe in everyone's right to speak freely right up to and including people with whom you disagree, even vitriolically. Because as soon as you start to try to tell them they can't speak freely, what right exists for you to continue to speak freely? Either all speech is free or no speech is free which is why you should especially stick up for the speech you dislike.

ketsuko

Buttonlip

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.

Huh????? The people at the top benefit least? Please explain.

Freedom of speech was put in the COTUS specifically to protect the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances ... specifically against the government.

One thing that people conveniently forget about the Citizens United Case in the SCOTUS was that one of the things the people arguing for the government would be able and allowed to do if the SCOTUS had ruled the other way was ban books specifically books with political speech the government did not like.

That still does not answer my question. It is a very simple question in response to a very simple statement yet so many have taken the ball, run with it, and gone somewhere else entirely.

A perfect example is 100 years ago. Who benefited the LEAST from free speech in the US? Black people and women were punished by the government for things they said. Were rich white men? So please explain how and when the people on top started benefiting the least. Lost of rich white men in jail now for things they said? Am I missing that?

Buttonlip

ketsuko

Buttonlip

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.

Huh????? The people at the top benefit least? Please explain.

Freedom of speech was put in the COTUS specifically to protect the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances ... specifically against the government.

One thing that people conveniently forget about the Citizens United Case in the SCOTUS was that one of the things the people arguing for the government would be able and allowed to do if the SCOTUS had ruled the other way was ban books specifically books with political speech the government did not like.

That still does not answer my question. It is a very simple question in response to a very simple statement yet so many have taken the ball, run with it, and gone somewhere else entirely.

A perfect example is 100 years ago. Who benefited the LEAST from free speech in the US? Black people and women were punished by the government for things they said. Were rich white men? So please explain how and when the people on top started benefiting the least. Lost of rich white men in jail now for things they said? Am I missing that?

So, your answer is revenge rather than simply righting what wrong?

Buttonlip

beezzer

Buttonlip

beezzer
reply to post by ketsuko

 

True free speech is defending someone you disagree with.

That makes ZERO SENSE. I can only be speaking freely if I am defending someone I do not agree with????? What is Phil doing then? Who is he defending? Free speech is expressing yourself, not comparing your thoughts to those of another. How many of your posts are free speech and how many are you defending someone you do not agree with? You logic is lost on me.

And I will defend your right to post the above.

That is really sweet of you but it does nothing to explain the claim that the only free speech is defense of other speech. The speech being defended was not free speech?

I never said "only" I said true free speech is defending speech you may not agree with.

Meaning, free speech is all speech. Not simply speech that you agree with.

ketsuko

beezzer
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.

Yes, this.

The only difference between MSNBC and what Robertson was doing is that Duck Dynasty is solely for entertainment not for any kind of factual edification. MSNBC purports to be a news organization. Now maybe I misunderstood and they were taking part in a punditry show, in which case, a certain amount of opinion is expected. Then, it's up to the network to determine if their opinions are rendered in good taste or not.

Obviously the 650,000 viewers of MSNBC must be just fine with it.

MSNBC clearly labels their programming as opinion but FOX "news" will not tell you that. Now does Fox "NEWS" try to disguise opinion as news or are you just really biased here?

reply to post by ketsuko


Why does there need to be an explanation at all? The Constitution outlines our rights and limits the government. Whether the rights are derived from God, a piece of paper, or some other intangible concept; they still exist in this country. It is still illegal for a government official to deny those rights to American citizens without just cause. Being as how there hasn't been an (official) atheist President yet, I'd say that Christian presidents aren't too hung up on the whole "rights derived from God" thing either. Bush jr. did a pretty good job denying them. Clinton helped sell our jobs overseas. Reagan ramped up the war on drugs.