Joey Vento Is Right, This Is America, Speak English

Well, what do you mean? How can a person's opinions be right or wrong? They can't, that's why they are opinions. They can only be neutral. People are entitled to their views, whether I agree or disagree with them. The only thing that makes a person's views right or wrong is whether you agree with them or not. I am not the thought police. I am not going to tell people what they can and can't think or say. That's the type of thing people should be speaking out against in this Orwellian society we live in.

As far as Vento and his views on Mumia Abu-Jamal and the Black Panthers, I couldn't care less. That's not what is being discussed here.

If you want MY personal views, that's one thing, but I am not going to speak on behalf of another person or tell you whether I think their views are "right" or "wrong." That's just ludicrous and not the way I think.

 

I see. Well, it's good to know that you believe in the system when it comes to Free Speech and defending a racist sign. Right or wrong, I'm glad you know your opinions.

 

I asked you if you felt the sentiments being expressed by this man are in your opinion, correct and you would feel comfortable endorsing and promoting. That's what I mean when I asked "Do you think his opinions are right or wrong?" as I'm curious about your own personal thoughts on the subject.

 

Free speech means free speech for everyone, including racists and hatemongers. Free speech also allows people to speak out openly against such racism and hatemongering. I don't know enough about Vento to say whether he is a hate-monger or not, but I am not going to jump on the PC bleeding heart bandwagon and deem him a "racist," either. Frankly, it's irrelevant to me since that is not the issue here. The issue here is personal freedom and free speech, and you're doing everything in your will to divert from that issue, making it into something it's not.

Now if a person was to act physically on their racism and hate, that's quite a different story. But if we are going to go around persecuting people for their beliefs, then who determines what is "right" or "wrong," and what the consequences should be?

Supporting free speech does not equate to believing in the system, because that is a right people are born with. Believing in the system is supporting a system that wants to take those rights and freedoms away, and they will use issues like this to make ALL free speech a crime, including free speech against the government.

 

I asked you a question.

Would you feel comfortable endorsing and promoting the views of this man?

 

Why would I endorse his views? I don't endorse anyone's views other than my own. I am a sovereign and sentient human being.

 

So that would be a 'no'.

You would endorse his views if you actually thought that he was correct and shared similar views enough to support his and uphold his rights to express them.

Basically, what you are currently saying, is that you don't care about his views either way as long as he can say whatever he wants to people.

If that's the purpose of Free Speech, to say whatever you want to target groups, individuals and promote hate-filled messages of intolerance and injustice, then I don't know why you would be in favour of that message, if only because you endorse the views in question or that you in fact endorse the system installed to ensure it.

Essentially, you're upholding a view that "Everyone can say whatever they want to people" as an underlying right, am I correct?

 

Yes, I believe people can say whatever they want, no matter how hateful or offensive it is, and as long as it doesn't entail slander or libel or physical threats against another person or group of people. If we are going to start regulating language (words), then at what point does it end? Where is the line drawn, and who determines what can and cannot be said? Who determines what is politically correct and politically incorrect? WHO are the brain police (just like the Zappa song asks)? Don't you see how governments USE and exploit issues like this to further their own agenda by eliminating free speech in general? This is taken directly from the Soviet system. If you are going to look to big daddy government to start regulating free speech, then it will only be a matter of time before we have no free speech at all. We are aleady halfway there in the West (US, Canada, Europe, etc.)

Now if someone is going to act on their hate and cause physical harm to another person, that is quite another story.

 

It's not a right to speak English - it's a privilege.

No. No, I don't. Can you please show me how they do. I'd like to see.

Wow. So it would be okay for this man to put a sign that says "No Jews Allowed" or "Blacks Sit Outside" and you'd be perfectly comfortable with supporting his First Amendment rights? I mean, if he never physically hurts them or threatens them or denies them service of course. You're saying that you'd have no problem with this, and you're missing the point of the inentions of freedoms and rights, in my opinion.

I think Lady Justice can balance the scales and blindly decide for us what is too far, and what is too much when it comes to who the Brain Police are in our modern world.

What I mean is, I believe that minorities have a right not to be offended when they go to order a sandwich, or that groups of obvious language differences, racial differences, and ad nauseam, have a superior right to promote a message of tolerance, harmony, peace and acceptance above any hate-filled or offensive piece of literature.

It is those rights that deserve to take precedence over any Free Speech filth a child molester, religious or racist can spew out to express whatever message they see fit to express in order to demote any positive message of acceptance there is in this world.

There are methods to promote justice and peace while protecting an individual's right to express any imposition in opposition of that message. I just don't think this man's message is above any sense of justice that I understand nor does his right to express whatever filth he can muster justify his right to exercise any legitimate affirmation that his views deserve to be expressed simply because he thinks he has every right to.

 

I hope you can make some sense of what I have said. I'm pretty tired.

 

It's a privilege to speak English? What does that mean? It doesn't even make any sense, except to maybe someone who favors Stalin-style totalitarianism and believes the government serves to lord over us. It's a right for people to speak whatever language they want -- English or otherwise -- just as it's a right for a person to put up a sign inside a building they own and pay taxes on. It doesn't mean squat what you think about it.

And what is "Lady Justice"? That is a joke and completely laughable. It is another mindless slogan that is parroted without any critical thought whatsoever, by people who are clueless about how the system is run. There is no such thing as justice under this global system, m'kay? The system does not work for the people, m'kay? The system (including the "justice" system) works for the people who run that system, who see the average person as cattle, m'kay? The government is not your daddy. When have governments ever served to make things better for the people? Governments serve to MANAGE the people. We have seen all throughout history, the bigger governments become, the less accountable to the people they become, and the less accountable to the people they become, the more totalitarian they become. It's called knowing history. Most people are oblivious to history (REAL HISTORY), which is why history is repeating itself. But I am sure to you everything is just hunky dory and exactly as Mr. Anchorman and Mrs. Schoolteacher have told you. After all, if something was amiss, surely they would be the first to let you know.

You ask how the government would or could exploit such a thing? Are you serious? Since when does the government have the right to dictate what people can or cannot say? That's right out of the book of Stalin and Hitler. You see, when you give the government an inch, they take a mile, and we know that free speech is under attack in the West. Today it will be about protecting minorities, and tomorrow it will be about squashing any dissent against those who speak out against the government. These people work via INCREMENTALISM, as it's time you understood this. They use issues that stir up emotions, to create polarity and a justification to pass laws which curtail free speech. It has nothing to do with "protecting" anyone other than the criminals within the government.

 

I'm not convinced anything you have just posted makes any rational sense, whatsoever.

You just said that people have a right to speak whatever language they want, so why should this man have a right to put up a sign that says otherwise???

I was referring to Lady Justice - to imply that I support the decisions of the courts and have reasonable faith in the purpose, intentions and functionality of a working and democratic government overall. Yes, I think it's a terrible decision to allow this man to continue putting up offensive and hateful signs, but I am assured that it is legal for him to do so - although I would prefer that it wasn't legal for him to put up that message.

You're ranting at me hun, and you're not speaking to me anymore.

I'm sorry if you've become agitated and frustrated with the things that I am saying, but do not accuse me of serving Master Stalin, because I insinuated that we let Lady Justice duke out our social conflicts. It isn't very becoming to grasp at straws and lash out.

I support a functioning government - no matter what size - and one that is there to protect, defend and promote a quality of life that the people who support it, rightfully deserve.

That's what I stand for. And you can tell me that the Anchorman and my Schoolteachers have told me to repeat everything I have expressed here until you are blue in the face, but it will not negate the fact that you have yet to convince me that Free Speech is being squashed by governments and that it's under attack to the extent that you seem fit to apply here, and to encourage the case and message of this man's sign.

Why are you so adamant about Free Speech? What is motivating you to promote it's use - if only to uphold insults and hate in the community?

 

Why am I so adament about free speech? Wow!!!! Are you seriously asking that question? Tell me I am not having some kind of flashback and am seeing things?

Maybe it's because the freedom to speak freely and express ourselves is a god-given right, and it's one of the few we have remaining, which is coming under increasing attack each and every day by an increasingly fascistic government intent on imposing its will on the people. Don't you know that governments DO NOT GRANT FREEDOMS, they can only take them away?

If you cannot see that free speech is under attack across the West, then I simply cannot and will not discusss this any further with you. I mean, I am sure even the most uninformed people have heard of what are called "free speech zones." I am sure people have heard of hate crime laws, which have NOTHING to do with protecting gays and minorities, and everything to do with creating the pretext to further erode the right to free speech by criminalizing words. They always first sell it to the public in a way that's hard for the average person to not view as being good and wholesome at face value, blind to the underlying agenda.

I did say that people have the right to speak whatever language they want, just as the owner of Geno's Steaks has the right to put a sign up expressing his views. It's his business, and nobody has to do business with him if they do like his views. Nobody is being held a gunpoint and being forced to eat there.

Free speech is free speech. Period. It's not free speech for only the people you agree with. You would make a great dictator with that sort of belief.

Ever heard the saying, the road to evil is paved with good intentions? In other words, not everything is as it appears at face value. The government isn't passing these these laws regulating free speech because they care about people's feelings.

 

M'kay...

What is motivating you to promote the use of free speech if it only upholds insults, hate and further divisions between people within a society?

What's the point of Free Speech if it harbours hate, fear, racism, colonialism and imperialism, cruelty, exploitation and offense, injustice, demonization, dehumanization, aggression, intolerance, oppression and hierarchy?

What kind of rights are you wanting from your freedom?

------

I would make a great dictator, because I'd pwn you and beat you with a logic stick. Are you happy? I don't think you need to push my buttons.

 

I never said anything about criminalizing words. But since you brought it up, how is that going to happen exactly in your view?? And are you saying that it will happen in the USA? I'm confused.

What does it say will happen tomorrow in the agenda, eh?

 

You just don't seem to get it.

But I am not. I support free speech, which is free speech for everyone, regardless of what they think or say. You can't seem to grasp this very simple concept. After all, that is the very definition of what free speech is. You can't have free speech when you say "well, I don't like what these people say, so we'll just pass a law making it illegal. These other people, well, I agree with them so they can say whatever they want."

That's not how it works.

You see, when you start regulating free speech (which then becomes no longer free) for one group of people, you are regulating it for everyone, since free speech applies to everyone. Once you allow the government to start regulating speech, where is the line drawn in the sand that prevents everything from being made illegal except that which is deemed "politically correct" by the government?

 

Yeah. But the intentions of Free Speech and the First Amendment wasn't created so that people could say whatever the heck they want, whenever they want.

It was, and never has been created to endorse 100% Free Speech for everyone all of the time, every single time, whenever people felt like saying how much they love having sex with small children, etc. That's just a government ploy to make you all think it was and is, when historically and accurately it was meant to regulate the voice of the mob and protect the thoughts of a modern and free thinking enlightened individual.

Free Speech doesn't work. It's unfortunate that you feel like 100% free speech is possible, just, and attainable without recognizing the consequences of having mechanisms that will engage acts of aggression caused by 100% free speech, and because of it, a society will be unable to forfend the ramifications and significance of emplacing a sense of justice behind the Rights to Freedom of Expression. It's an arduous task to intentionally say that everybody and every time has a right to say whatever they want no matter what onerous consequence. One has to wonder why on earth would a corrupted government as you have described, agree to that? Because it technically never did.

Freedom of Speech is a forfeited right, a crippled right from the get-go.

----

I happen to believe that not everyone has the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want - and I support laws based on circumstance to determine the justice of saying what has any merit or has been said to de-merit a targeted group.

I endorse the regulation of hate, fear, racism, colonialism, cruelty, oppression, dehumanization and intolerance - in a matter of circumstance where Freedom of Expression is involved.

I don't see it as a black and white issue however, as if it were a case of Free Speech vs. No Rights here.

It's more of a Free Speech vs. Cruelty measuring stick, in my opinion and I see the 'Free Speech' guise being used as a crutch to draw a line in the sand between a community and an opinionated restaurant owner. It's all smoke and mirrors to play into the media and think cases like these are all about having to say whatever you want whenever you want to.

 

Wow. Need I say anything more?

Sounds like something you would expect to hear from maybe Bush or Cheney.

 

In a sense, it's a rather juvenile notion to assume that you can say what you want, to whoever you want, whenever you want. You have to admit, that it's very childlike.

In a way, I view the US government as nursing an infantile stigma associated with Free Speech rights and the meaning and historical foundations to what it was intended for. It's amusing to watch the temper tantrums last, blow over, and then build up over and over again as if people can't realize that there are more important values to consider instead of fighting to express themselves all of the time, every single time, to anyone at any place.

It is a strange American norm to possess a strong sense of liberty and wish to impose the sense of liberty on everyone and call it Free Speech.

I'm perplexed sometimes by what it means to uphold liberty above any sense of peace. You're right Matt, I can't see the forest from the trees sometimes - and it's not something I wish you to hold against me.

 

You can't yell "FIRE!" in a theatre. It's illegal for you to do it, and claim it was your freedom to do so.

If you did, it would be 100% Free Speech, but since you can't - for obvious reasons - and it's not the nature of Free Speech to be used to fit improper treatment of people, or to execute negligent and unethical conduct - it can't work.

Gandhi would be expected to say it can't work either.