Is Free Speech Really What We Want?

It is not free speech that divides, it is ideas, as always. And, as always, one side wants to use force to quell the opposing idea.

People say those that forget history are doomed to repeat it. I say if we don't repeat history, what else would we do with our time?

 

Your right to free speech does not obligate anyone else to provide you with an audience and a platform. That's no more a violation of free speech than the rules here at PF are. "They wouldn't let me do my speech in their auditorium" is no more a violation of your right to free speech than "Jeff wouldn't sell me his gun" is a violation of your right to bear arms.

 

Freedom of speech is the bedrock of all freedoms. The best way you can combat stuff like bullying, "fake news", etc is by using free speech ourselves. Not encouraging socitial dissapproval of it, that would only encourage laws to limit it.

 

So if the Young Republicans invite a conservative speaker on campus and liberals form a human chain and block his car from getting to the speech, or if they threaten the professor that sponsored the speech, you're ok with that? Did you know conservatives must have bodyguards when they speak on campus?

Why don't conservatives do this to liberal speakers? Oh, that's right ... conservatives are adults.

 

No, as I've explained the several times I've talked bout the initiation of force on these boards, using physical restraint or the threat of violence to silence speech is unacceptable.

Both sides have their loonies. My side has loonies too -- I've encountered plenty of libertarians who don't seem to grasp the whole non-aggression principle thing. But to say that only liberals do this can only be chalked up to selective attention or lack of exposure. I was threatened by plenty of social conservatives in college for offending their religious sensibilities, speaking out against the Iraq war, and even on one occasion for just wearing a pink shirt and walking around with another guy too close to Northgate late on a Thursday night. That last one got me a trip to the emergency room. Hell, we had a conservative group on campus that kept a running list of their "Most Wanted" liberal professors, which resulted in several threats against those professors. Not to mention the times that our local mosque was vandalized, the local liberal rag had its papers stolen or the multiple incidents of attacks on our foreign students.

 

Government cannot infringe on protected speech. Individuals can threaten and knock the snot out of obnoxious jackasses whenever they like and be presumed innocent until a jury finds them guilty of some crime.

Look it up. It's in the Constitution - key phrase: "obnoxious jackasses".

 

Tears at society means to deliberately cause tensions between people and to undermine any possible positive relationships between people. Divisive propaganda is an example of this.

Why do I gladly slip on my chains?
Well, I don't have chains, but I do try to police my own speech when talking to others. I understand communication and how it can be used to influence people to do many things, including harming others. I just don't see why America can't grow up and have certain standards/norms for itself, especially in speech.

 

The notion that all speech is equal is erroneous.

The ultimate form and PURPOSE of free speech is that speech which defends unalienable rights. First by informing if their destruction, then by unifying people to stop the destruction.

When government is complicit in the destruction, there is law that can be invoked to alter or abolish the government. This law is Article V.

But Article V is conducted by states legislations, therefore the ultimate purpose of free speech is to unify the people to control, democratically, their state legislations.

We need to revise the First Amendment to end the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech under the 9th amendment. All states will have to amend their constitutions as well to see the PURPOSE is served .

----DRAFT REV. Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order to alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.-----​

 

Let's be honest, most people don't care about being "free" as much as being "reasonably free".

So I would say we do not want free speech, but free enough speech.

 

And, with the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech, generally, because of the fact it is known, will create more respect for uses of free speech socially. Mostly because those hearing the speech will know the value of the speech and can more reasonably choose to listen or not.

Reasonable in this case relates to the true nature of civil right and it's role in forming, maintaining then truly advancing civil society.

 

what the (*)(*)(*)(*) is a "positive relationship" ?
Which political whores would you like to decide what is "positive" and what is "negative"?

 

What I'm talking about is people causing tensions between others. Just one example of this would be the police vs 'unarmed citizens' news bulletins. While this type of speech helps sells content, it causes tensions between the two groups of people and it undermines any possible positive relationship between the cops and the public.

Many times news reports will recklessly 'report' on incidents as they throw in a whole slew of assumptions. This misleads the public and creates certain damaging narratives. I don't see why such irresponsible speech should be protected.

The 'political whores' who should decide on what is positive and what is negative should be the American public. The issue is what should be done when the American public cannot stop certain types of damaging speech because their voice isn't as loud as some other faction(s)?

 

Television back. Sports and News in TV and Musics. So just a little computer life in write just sayin. And easy job I has 4 days of weekend.

 

Those that do not know the differences between what they want and what they need, are choosing to eventfully, by default, not have what they need,


See my signature.

 

Maybe we needed 50 biggest community only. Or nothing else left in internet. We get us to normality life since middle of 1990s and 1980s, etc. Since before only.

Putin in Russia, Merkel in EU and Trump in USA pay 3 billion Dollar for those things will happen.

We are in reality a bigger POTUS in standard life since last 21 in internet work.
We only need Wikipedia infact then play games and military / sports news and standard news in internet work.
Only a few changes on internet communities away are moneytalks.
Maybe Trump want to introduce these.

 

It is last year in computer communities.