I might not agree with you on everything but free speech should be free!

Now I definitely do not agree with most diehard conservatives and/or their media choices, but....but.....unless it is endangering people's lives or is part of some criminal enterprise....I think they should have the right to voice their opinions, views, etc. It might be insane. It might be a belief based on a lie. But if we have the right to believe what we want to believe, etc, then they should too. Now, granted there are some ideas,beliefs, etc that are dangerous (The "Big Lie" leading to The 2021 Insurrection for example), but most of the things we either agree with or disagree with are not like that. Ideas? Comments,etc?

 

Freedom of speech is critical otherwise bad ideas simply fester underground and are never defeated in the light of day.

Also, I miss Loompanics.

 

The media collects data on us and they try to manipulate us. If they fail, they improve their tools and their data sets and they try again. Despite everything they do, we can always choose how we respond to the world.

If we are annoyed, it is only because we have given them the power to annoy us. They are undeserving of that power.

 

As always, Donald Trump can be referenced as a negative factor in the area of free speech. Look at the outrageous things he casually told us in his Twitter account. Remember last May when he accused MSNBC host Joe Scarborough of murdering his intern in 2001, despite there having been no evidence to support it? When confronted with that piece of information, his supporters told us that: 'Well, he has the right of free speech.'

Okay, so how could he be blocking posts to his account by other Twitter users that disagreed with him? If they weren't using profanity, why is it in his right to 'ban' their posts? Don't they also have the right of free speech?

The hypocrisy of so many of those 'free speech advocates' is incredible.

 

Agreed

 

I would say this
“As our Constitution provides, however, liberty entails precisely the freedom to be reckless, within limits, also the freedom to insult and offend as the case may be. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld our right to experiment in offensive language and ideas, and in some cases, offensive action and speech. Such experimentation is inherent to our freedom as such.

 

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/76/7b/a2/767ba2b925afacdb86521d7fe8b7099e.jpg

 

I believe you support censorship .

 

Free speech while a right does not guarantee speech without consequences. The 1st amendment was directed at the government. You are free to complain about it. You cant tell your boss he is an asshat or your wife that she is.....whatever and not get kicked out.

 

For every action there is a reaction

 

A politician says something voters dont like, they dont voter for him/her. If a business says something customers dont like, they dont buy from them.

 

Used to be that people defended someone's right to give an unpopular opinion. Now people defend someone's right to tell a lie and use that lie to take power. Its also interesting to find that those largely that defend the lie also want that same power and are willing to use the lie to get it.

 

This reminds me of the old adage, "Freedom isn't Free". It couldn't be more true, but somehow it feels like a military slogan. I revere our army; I respect them more than anything. But I think that war should be left in the past. We have better options, and I don't like the thought of war; let alone the ramifications of it.

 

That is exactly what happened on covid death figures, but since they are not doctors, they were as alarmed as the people who were reading them. I therefore did not blame them at the time, but when they realised that the TOTAL death figures were up by less than 2% they should have been able to work out why their figures were so alarmist and misleading and told us all the truth.

In case you still don't understand how this happened, you need to know that 95% of ALL deaths involve a virus during the final 72 hours. Since covid was notifiable, it appeared on the death certificate, whereas the normal viruses don't. Therefore people were assuming that it was the PRIMARY cause of death. Meanwhile, looking at the figures without medical qualifications, no one seemed to notice that cancer and diabetes deaths appeared to DROP by 80%
At the height of the pandemic, the UK daily death figures were running about 20 above average. This is fairly common during the cold and flue season every year, since patients who are dying die approximately 10 days sooner.
With our fairly stable climate in the UK, their are fairly small humps in the daily mortality charts, but in India they are like a camels back, with the hump during the monsoon season.
This does not affect peoples life expectancy. Sick people simply know that if they survive the monsoon season, they are likely to live for another year.

 

Nothing has changed . A citizen might never get beyond considering what is plausable , and in the thoughtfulness of that is power .
God may be there , too .

 

I believe it has it's place yes! You shouldn't be able to yell fire in a crowded place UNLESS there is actually a fire!

 

Freedom of Speech sounds good in theory but will always come with conditions.
In the US I see - The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution has been interpreted to mean that you are free to say whatever you want and you are even free to not say anything at all
Though while freedom of speech is one of our fundamental rights, there are limitations.
As a general rule, limitations on free speech preclude speech that is harmful to others, threatening, or generally repulsive and reviled.
Be it the KKK, the Westboro Baptist Church. The UK's National Front/English Defence League and/or others who Preach not just agitation but hatred and violence have a degree of responsibility ..... though often is the case that is not the case.

 

I recall the case of a high school girl in Connecticut some years ago. She used social media to announce that the administrators of her school were "douchebags" over some policy with which she disagreed. The school responded by not allowing her to serve as a class officer for which she was chosen for the next semester.

She took the matter to court, claiming that the school was abrogating her right to free speech by punishing her......but that wasn't true. To violate her free speech rights, the school would have had to force her to take down her original message.....but they didn't do that. Instead, they punished her for improper actions. The problem is that she wasn't looking for free speech; rather, she was looking for speech that is free of consequences.......and we aren't guaranteed that. People have to learn that if they want to hit a target, the target has the right to hit back.

After all, if a student is in a classroom setting and calls the teacher a douchebag in front of the other students, do you really think the student won't be punished? Remember detention? Remember suspension?

The high school girl had her say, then the school had it's say.

Seems fair to me.