Who does free speech help more: liberals or conservatives?

Free speech helps both. As long as I can openly and freely say that the other party can go screw themselves, all will be free.

ketsuko


Yes, McCarthy was right. There were communists in the government.

I'm not sure what not wanting to have communists in sensitive power/security positions in the government has to do with freedom of expression.

Charlie Chaplin was a communist and in the government? Or do you really not know much about McCarthy at all?

reply to post by Buttonlip


Oh, the Hollywood blacklist ... blacklists in Hollywood still happen. Don't worry, they're getting that sweet revenge out there.

Krazysh0t
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.

Do you remember the hell Kennedy got for being the supposed first Catholic president? Crazy country of religious freedom we have here.

Krazysh0t
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.

And I would agree with you that it's a huge problem that no one sees this as a problem. They should because it is.

But handing it over to someone who thinks that the only reason we have rights is because the government chooses to grant them to us is more problematic because it lowers that bar just another incremental notch toward the idea that the COTUS is a "living, breathing" document that says whatever it's convenient to have it say, and it opens the door to ever more appointment of people who think exactly that way.

ketsuko

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.

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

I never argued against any of this. I am simply asking how the ONLY FREE SPEECH is criticism. The thing being criticized is not free?

reply to post by Buttonlip


Sure do. I mentioned it on the previous page.

reply to post by ketsuko

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.

Really? This strikes me as being a little dishonest - and convenient

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."

If we handled things this way - there would be no innocent until proven guilty

There would be no such thing as freedom of belief - or free expression of that belief

All we would have is a government that sought to protect itself - at any cost. It would be a select few in that government who would get to make that call. Which is exactly what happened - for a while

P.S. I owe you another reply - but I'm out of here for a while. I'm good for it

:-)

Buttonlip

Krazysh0t
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.

Do you remember the hell Kennedy got for being the supposed first Catholic president? Crazy country of religious freedom we have here.

Ah, yes, and I remember Romney's magic underwear, too. Crazy country of religious freedom.

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by ketsuko

 

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.

Really? This strikes me as being a little dishonest - and convenient

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."

If we handled things this way - there would be no innocent until proven guilty

There would be no such thing as freedom of belief - or free expression of that belief

All we would have is a government that sought to protect itself - at any cost. It would be a select few in that government who would get to make that call. Which is exactly what happened - for a while

P.S. I owe you another reply - but I'm out of here for a while. I'm good for it

:-)

I see. So we should have Chinese nationals, Russian nationals, Iranian nationals and whoever all else wants to work for the government working in our top secret sensitive areas because to do otherwise is to be discriminatory?

I suppose you are in favor of letting people with previous sex offender charges work with children, too? I mean, they have paid their debt to society and who says they haven't reformed themselves ...

ketsuko


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

Where in my response do you get that??????
I am actually still just asking for clarification on the original statement. I never advocated anything, let alone revenge.

beezzer


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.

That only leaves false free speech as the alternative. Maybe you are not reading what you are writing? Either way, you still are not making sense. TRUE FREE speech is anything spoken, not just retaliatory responses.

ketsuko

Krazysh0t
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.

And I would agree with you that it's a huge problem that no one sees this as a problem. They should because it is.

But handing it over to someone who thinks that the only reason we have rights is because the government chooses to grant them to us is more problematic because it lowers that bar just another incremental notch toward the idea that the COTUS is a "living, breathing" document that says whatever it's convenient to have it say, and it opens the door to ever more appointment of people who think exactly that way.

Nonsense to all of this. What you just described is "fear of the unknown" and how to rationalize away from it. We've had 44 Christian presidents (43 of which have been Protestant). There is no way of knowing how an atheist president will act and behave since we haven't had one. YOU even admit that you feel better voting for a President with religious beliefs, like atheists are somehow these morally devoid people who cannot sympathize with their fellow human and just want to subjugate control or something. Then you turn around and accuse the sitting president of secretly being an atheist like it is a bad thing.

The Constitution says what it says. It spells out the rights we have and what the government can and cannot do. If we proved tomorrow that God doesn't exist, we'd still have those rights. It is a part of our country. Not to mention, what you described is the first step towards a slippery slope fallacy. Get one atheist in office and suddenly we are losing rights left and right. Well as I have demonstrated earlier, faith has no relevance on a President's willingness to strip rights from us. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus. Now-a-days that is glossed over in history class like it was some necessary evil, but if it wasn't for him being assassinated do we know if he'd have ever reinstituted it?

So why continually place your trust in a leader based on their faith? Why not try leaving your comfort zone for once and support something unknown? Can it be so much worse than the slow death we are experiencing from so called Christian Presidents? (note: I'm not saying to not support Christian Presidents in the future, just don't let their religious affiliation have any baring on if they get your vote or not)

reply to post by Buttonlip


Well, since my point is that everyone should fight equally for everyone's right to speak freely, and your response is to bring up old inequalities of the past and point out how there are no "old white men" in jail, I can only assume that you want said "old white men" in jail for speaking freely. Ergo, you want revenge, not equality of speech or true freedom of speech.

Buttonlip

beezzer


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.

That only leaves false free speech as the alternative. Maybe you are not reading what you are writing? Either way, you still are not making sense. TRUE FREE speech is anything spoken, not just retaliatory responses.

Um. . . . .ok.

You win the internetz.

Cheers.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


No, I told you I want one who can explain to me why my unalienable rights are sacrosanct and not government's to attempt to abridge or suppress. There is a difference. If I can find that person, then I would consider voting for him or her depending on the rest of his or her stance on the issues.

PS, You weaken yourself in your own argument. You admit that today's politicians use the COTUS as so much toilet paper. So, if having an atheist means the COTUS is the only bar to oppression of rights without a satisfactory articulation of what unalienable rights are and a way to reassure me that the candidate in question believes in them ... then why am I trusting to the COTUS alone to protect me and my rights again?

ketsuko
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

No, I told you I want one who can explain to me why my unalienable rights are sacrosanct and not government's to attempt to abridge or suppress. There is a difference. If I can find that person, then I would consider voting for him or her depending on the rest of his or her stance on the issues.

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

And you never explained to me why there needs to be an explanation to begin with. The rights are there and there doesn't need to be a place of origin from them. I'd say that their existence for the last 200 years has institutionalized them enough so that we don't need them to be derived from anything. Not to mention, why does the President have to explain anything in regards to where the rights originate from? The President is mostly just a figurehead. If YOU believe that our rights are derived from God, that should be good enough for you. All -I- ask is that the President honors the rights that have been outlined in the Constitution.

PS, You weaken yourself in your own argument. You admit that today's politicians use the COTUS as so much toilet paper. So, if having an atheist means the COTUS is the only bar to oppression of rights without a satisfactory articulation of what unalienable rights are and a way to reassure me that the candidate in question believes in them ... then why am I trusting to the COTUS alone to protect me and my rights again?

Answer me this. When a President, Christian or otherwise, denies your rights, is your God going to save them?

ketsuko
reply to post by Buttonlip

 

Oh, the Hollywood blacklist ... blacklists in Hollywood still happen. Don't worry, they're getting that sweet revenge out there.

Way to shift the topic. I am specifically addressing your claim that McCarthy was right. Do you still see anyone in government trying to prosecute movie stars for being communist? Maybe you need to enlighten me because McCarthy is the is the last time I know of that happening and he was wrong to hunt down "communists" in government and not in government and try to jail them for it. Nothing about that was right.

ketsuko

Buttonlip

Krazysh0t
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.

Do you remember the hell Kennedy got for being the supposed first Catholic president? Crazy country of religious freedom we have here.

Ah, yes, and I remember Romney's magic underwear, too. Crazy country of religious freedom.

Yes, I also recall that criticism came from the Christian right. The left did not care what religion he was. Funny how that works.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


It matters because the government has the power to try to force me to live my life as they see fit through law and force.

No, they can't actually take my basic rights away, but it's cold comfort if they forcibly march me off, put me in a cattle car, barcode me, and stick me in a gas a shower because I practice the wrong religion someday. They have the force to do that if they so choose to turn on us, and if the citizens of the country forget who and what they are, they could allow it to happen.

That's why it's so important to me to try to determine just exactly who and what I'm getting at election time.

I don't want just anyone to serve. I want someone who respects the rights of his or her fellow citizens, and believe me, I've heard from atheist conservatives that I wouldn't vote for for just this reason - they would jump on people's rights to institute what they think is right in law. It's the same way some Christians think the government exists to bring about God's kingdom on earth (Huckabee). I wouldn't vote for him either because he'd do the same - jump on people's rights.

So, yeah, I kind of need that assurance before I'll bite.