General News The Fight for Free Speech

1. Is the Left “killing free speech” by preventing speakers from speaking by protesting? Or by causing a DJ to lose his gig by playing “Blurred Lines”? Or causing the CEO of Mozilla to step down for supporting anti-gay marriage laws?

I wouldn't put the left out here to dry, because the argument can be made that some of the right wingers are killing free speech. Like the Megyn Kelley question to Donald Trump (technically) attacked Mr. Trumps right to free speech. Do I think that the left has tendencies to find themselves all worked up over a few comments? Absolutely. But I think the right should be looked at as well.

2. Given that we already have some exceptions to the First Amendment, do there need to be more? Should we have legal consequences for abusive Tweets? Or putting up racist signs on our property? Should the government step in to online free speech issues?

I think that there needs to be no restriction on free speech aside from the insinuation of an attack on U.S soil. For Tweets, I don't believe that there should be any consequences for Tweets or social media, aside from the aforementioned exception.

Racist signs on property isn't politically correct nor do I agree with it, but the right to free speech still stands in my opinion.

3. How can we balance the value of free speech against other competing values?

What are our values? That's the question and the answer to that question would answer this one I think.

 

Your statement doesn't even make sense, since I have clearly outlined the difference between thoughts and actions. You have failed to do it. I consider publicly expressing your opinion to be an action, because it requires you to actually take an action to express it. If you are privately sharing your thoughts and opinions with other like minded individuals, well--that's fine. However, once that information becomes public, individuals have a fundamental right (in THEIR free speech) to act accordingly.

You drew the artificial distinction between thoughts and actions, but you have failed to define the difference. As I pointed out, it is perfectly fine in your worldview for a teacher to refer to his gay students as faggots on his social media, so long as he isn't doing it while officially on his job at school. You didn't bother to address that at all, and let me know if that is a misinterpretation of your point of view.

We obviously both agree that a teacher calling their student a faggot to their face is inappropriate, and would be grounds for being fired. However, I want to know where specifically you are drawing your line. My position is clear: the moment I find out that the teacher has acted in such a way they would be fired, without question.

It doesn't matter whether or not they use derogatory terms or other offensive language. Their views are inappropriate and are not suitable to children.

It is literally no different than hiring a male science teacher who believed that females should be barefoot and pregnant, and had no place outside the home. Neither is it any different than hiring a teacher who believed that segregation was good and justified, because in her view African Americans really are inferior to white Americans. It doesn't matter if they don't use derogatory or offensive language, because the underlying views themselves are offensive and vile. It also would not matter if they used religion to justify such views, because religion in and of itself is not a magical shield that makes everything alright and whatever toxic view cloaked in it immune to criticism.

The simple fact is this: It is inappropriate for someone to work with children while holding bigoted views. Not only does it open up children to the potential to discrimination or other forms of abuse at the hands of the bigot, it also opens up the possibility of them passing on their odious views to other children thus amplifying the possibility that the targeted children will experience discrimination or abuse.

It is important to remember: Sharing these views with the world is THEIR choice. They are actively making the decision to share those views, and they have the possibility of changing them. Their victims whether they are women, African Americans, or LGBT people cannot change who they are to not be discriminated against or abused. That is why the preference and protection is offered to those groups, and why those who discriminate or abuse them are treated so harshly. This is also why they have fought so long and hard to make it seem like being LGBT was a choice, so that they could justify their bigotry and discrimination against us.

No, I would not fire individuals that are anti-choice nor would I fire Republicans. I am not targeting people because their views differ from my own, I am targeting people because they have the potential to harm others. Their views are harmful and dangerous to other people, and therefore people should have zero tolerance when dealing with them.

Keeping in mind, once again, that if they are sharing their views publicly, then they are the ones opening themselves up to criticism and scrutiny. This is true for ALL points of view, of course, but not all points of view are equal.

Someone who is anti-choice is not going to actively hurt anyone. If, on the other hand, they were shoving pictures of aborted fetuses in people's faces, and causing other problems on the job as a result of their views--then yes, we could have problems. However, the truth of the matter is that goes for any view. The workplace is not really a proper setting to discuss such issues.

It's a bit like proselytizing your religion at work. You shouldn't fire or discriminate against people on the basis of their religion, but if they are harassing other members of the workplace with their religious views and trying to convert them then it is a problem. However, there is a difference between sharing your views with people, proselytizing, and harassment. The line is very clear: If someone tells you that they aren't interested, or someone asks you to stop, you should respect their space and their wishes. This is how a professional person acts.

I'm obviously a person with strong opinions and beliefs. Clearly, I do not discriminate against everyone who disagrees with me. I think you outlined my position nicely in your final paragraph where you drew the distinction between "safe" and "unsafe" individuals.

There is no masking going on for my part. I have been rather blunt, open, and forthright with my thoughts and opinions. You don't have to look for hidden meanings or agendas. I'll spell it out for you clearly.

It is good that you acknowledge the distinction between "safe" and "unsafe" individuals, and that there is the potential for something harmful or abusive to happen. I am not advocating "Minority Report" style crimes. In fact, I am not treating them like crimes at all, because I don't want the government determining what type of speech is appropriate and acceptable. I am encouraging individual citizens and private institutions to take action. Open Arm's is the one advocating for government criminalization.

Your position here is also not consistent. You claim that we shouldn't punish people for things they might do, or the fact that bad things might potentially happen. Yet, you yourself have taken the position that a pedophile shouldn't be hired as a teacher because of what they might do or what could potentially happen. Sure, you drew the strange distinction between "thoughts" and "actions", however that is not relevant in this scenario that you've setup. Nothing has yet happened. It is perfectly possible that a pedophile would not molest or rape any of the children, and once they are free from prison they need jobs like everyone else. By your own standard they could be left on the street to starve to death because people would refuse to hire them.

From my point of view, it *IS* about what could potentially happen. It *IS* about "safe" vs "unsafe" individuals, and an ethical obligation to protect children from abuse. You've setup a situation where a child actually has to be abused BEFORE we do anything about it, even though we know that the child is at risk for abuse. This sets up a scenario where YOU are ethically responsible for that child being abused should it happen.

This is literally like knowing someone is an advocate for NAMBLA (pro-pedophile advocacy group), but hiring them to work as a teacher. You have no proof that they've broken any laws, and they may have not have actively engaged in pedophilia. Therefore, they can't be arrested or charged with any crime, since they are simply expressing their point of view. However, their point of view is that men should be allowed to have sex with young boys and that it is good and healthy for said boys. Under the guidelines you've created they haven't committed any "actions" and not hiring them would be wrong because of what might potentially happen if you let them have access to young children.

I'm not saying that you would hire someone from NAMBLA, because I don't believe that you would. I am simply using it as an example to show how untenable your position is when applied to specific situations in the real world.

 

No, that's not what I said at all.

A teacher calling out a student on social media as a 'faggot' falls into the territory of 'taking work into their personal life' and should be held to the same scrutiny and standard you'd hold them to while at work.


I'm saying a teacher can hold homophobic views at home and shouldn't have to worry about whether or not they'll be punished for a belief they hold.


Also interesting how everyone ignored my 'flip the script' little scenario.


It doesn't matter thought I'm literally done with this now.

I've been trying and failing for the last 2 days to get out of this discussion because I can tell when a conversation is going nowhere and is pointless.

 

Okay, well that was unclear. However, I'm still not sure why making a blanket anti-gay statement about gay children (my original proposition) is acceptable, so long as the teacher isn't calling out a single individual. It still creates the same problem as calling out a specific student.

I didn't ignore your 'flip the script' scenario. It wasn't directed toward me. I would have addressed it had you asked me too, and I would have told you that the two things are not equivalent. I would have also pointed out that the underlying premise you keep returning to is essentially the 'slippery slope' argument. I would have then pointed out that the 'slippery slope' argument is a logical fallacy.

I'm sorry that you feel that you have to vacate the discussion, but that is your choice and I will respect it. I, however, don't believe that the discussion was going nowhere nor was it pointless, as I was going to continue to press you on your position until it completely collapsed under you.

If you want to continue the discussion just let me know.

 

1. Is the Left “killing free speech” by preventing speakers from speaking by protesting? Or by causing a DJ to lose his gig by playing “Blurred Lines”? Or causing the CEO of Mozilla to step down for supporting anti-gay marriage laws?

Yes, imo.

2. Given that we already have some exceptions to the First Amendment, do there need to be more? Should we have legal consequences for abusive Tweets? Or putting up racist signs on our property? Should the government step in to online free speech issues?

No, imo.

3. How can we balance the value of free speech against other competing values?

We can't, really.

I admire the idea of everyone using their freedom of speech to only say politically correct, pro-equality, and inoffensive things, but it is rather unrealistic. You've got to take the bad with the good. To say that only certain viewpoints deserve an uncensored voice is intolerant.

 

Why aren't they equivalent? Is it because you believe one and not the other therefore they aren't the same?

They actually are equivelant and relevant.

The point of that argument is about Perspective. You're viewing the world through your own personal Narrow lense where everything you do is right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Now the viewpoint I offered in my 'flip the script' was told from a similar point of view but the antithesis of it.

You believe that gay = good anti-gay =bad. They believe gay = bad anti-gay = good.

^

To you what you are doing is right and just and to them what they are doing is right and just.


The point of my argument was to say would you be so eager to agree if public opinion was flipped the other way around and activists supporting gay rights were losing their jobs left and right for their viewpoints?

Also you place words in the category of actions, but I don't. They certainly can be if used in the right way ( such as inciting violence against someone else ) but words are the way we express our thoughts. Having freedom of thought is meaningless and shallow if you aren't allowed to use your speech to express those thoughts.


People have a right to speak their mind. People who are doing their job and doing it the way it's supposed to be done shouldn't be punished for what they say. I find it bothersome that we so casually talk about going after people for what they say.

I understand with Westboro because they aren't just speaking they are causing a disruption to the public and preventing a grieving family from having the peace they deserve in a time of mourning.

I can even understand someone on facebook going "Fuck all these faggots I hate them and they should die" or something

BUT

someone going on facebook and saying "I was raised Christian all my life, and I believe that homosexuality is wrong"

no I cannot understand that.


and yes you're right I keep talking about 'thought crimes' and you keep reminding me that you aren't talking about the government, but you are still considering it a thought crime. You're just using pink slips in place of prison time. Like I said at the beginning of this entire conversation being protecting from the government doesn't mean a damn thing if society is going to silence the opinion of others in their place.

The only thing you prove by overreacting to a person's viewpoints in this way is that you are AFRAID of that viewpoint. By trying so hard to silence this worldview you express that you see it as Valid and Credible. All those rights quotes we love throwing around are a two way street. It isn't a sign of cowardice when they try to silence you, but a show of strength and love when you try to silence them. It's either one or the other.

You're entire argument is literally based around a personal bias and double standard where what you think is wrong should be silenced via pink slips by society, but anything you believe is good should never be subject to the same rules. Why? Well because you believe one is good and the other isn't.

^

I was going to finally back away from this conversation, then this happened.

I'm not going to walk away from a discussion with some smug remark like this being the last thing people see. It literally pissed me off.

Don't get so dang full of yourself please

 

Thread locked pending staff review.