Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Suspect what you want. Just make sure that OFF of this keyboard, you keep yourself in line. This coming from the guy who claims to call black people primates in real life and gets away with it.
Yea...ok.
Learn to read, seriously. I never made that claim, I simply said that my black friends are clearly more rational than the militant black nut jobs here on CD who want to physically attack someone who insults them. If I called one of my black friends a chimp they wouldn't attack me because they're not crazy and they know I'm not a racist implying that they're a monkey. Maybe you should take some tips.
So let me be very clear, I and only I will decide what is and what isn't "in line" so please drop your poor attempt at intimidation because it ain't working. I'm not buying your BS, try someone else... and if you want to threaten me don't send it via anonymous notes, be a man and say what you want to say.
Political correctness is an approved form of censorship. Based on emotional appeals at the expense of reason, political correctness mandates that inconvenient truths or facts be swept under the carpet. Or else.
Free speech, guaranteed to all Americans under the first amendment, is on it’s way to becoming moot. The political, media and intellectual elites who control the terms of national debate and the rules of civil society have succeeded in censoring opposing views, limiting debate and demonizing dissent. Perception is on its way to becoming our new reality.
***************************************
Note, this is a Right leaning article. Just to clear that up before someone says it's slanted. The author has valid points though, if you keep an open mind.
I think this is somewhat of a complicated issue. I venture to guess we all claim to believe in free speech.
I just seems many people interpret free speech that does not affect them. Granted, in my opinion rights are not limitess. Sometimes a right might clash with another right. I believe a Supreme Court judge came up with what I think is called the Balancing Doctrine when two rigths collide so one will give in to the other.
I read somewhere that if someone yells "Fire" in a theater and claims free speech that would not be allowed. Does that make sense to forbid such speech? It does to me.
Now, how about calling an epithet that offends any group? To me we should be able to say whatever we want to others. Once we start to impose laws where do we draw the line when many people claim offense?
Well, let us put an example, City-Data. Do we not have it blocked if we put the "N" word, or the the Watery Spineal part name on Mexicans? Why? Should we not allow free speech?
I do not like it the government is interfering too much on areas like this. People are becoming so sensitive and get offended so much for so many things. However, I believe the government is not so much the problem as it is the people. Elected leaders often propose laws because the voters demand it. So when it comes to free speech groups of offended people bring in Big Brother to use his big arm against the rest, remember the squeaky wheel gets the grease expression? I believe this is the case, take care.
Learn to read, seriously. I never made that claim, I simply said that my black friends are clearly more rational than the militant black nut jobs here on CD who want to physically attack someone who insults them. If I called one of my black friends a chimp they wouldn't attack me because they're not crazy and they know I'm not a racist implying that they're a monkey. Maybe you should take some tips.
So let me be very clear, I and only I will decide what is and what isn't "in line" so please drop your poor attempt at intimidation because it ain't working. I'm not buying your BS, try someone else... and if you want to threaten me don't send it via anonymous notes, be a man and say what you want to say.
Political correctness is an approved form of censorship. Based on emotional appeals at the expense of reason, political correctness mandates that inconvenient truths or facts be swept under the carpet. Or else.
Free speech, guaranteed to all Americans under the first amendment, is on it’s way to becoming moot. The political, media and intellectual elites who control the terms of national debate and the rules of civil society have succeeded in censoring opposing views, limiting debate and demonizing dissent. Perception is on its way to becoming our new reality.
***************************************
Note, this is a Right leaning article. Just to clear that up before someone says it's slanted. The author has valid points though, if you keep an open mind.
This thread seems to have wandered around some. However, I read the linked article and I think Ms Nancy Morgan is rather off-based.
We must recall, that the First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.
Ms. Morgan begins her article concerning the racist lady juror. The trial judge apparently thought she was being deliberately provoking in order to duck jury duty, hence his 'sentence' (an incorrect term by Ms. Morgan) in not dismissing said lady from the jury pool: she must continue to report until she is so dismissed (which I bet happens pretty quick). The fact that Ms. Morgan claims that the lady juror was 'sentenced' pretty well ruins her credibility or, at best, lack of knowledge on how the court system works, and the power a trial judge has to get people to serve on the jury (it is very hard to find people willing to serve on a jury; in this case, the judge was obviously using his bench-power to make an example of this woman. Otherwise, she would have left bragging about how she 'beat the jury system' and other people would have given the same type of answers).
The other examples in the article likewise have nothing to do with Congress passing a law abridging speech. Now, some of the cited individuals were certainly subject to public pressure for their views, but that is not a 'first amendment issue'.
Ms. Morgan confuses the First Amendment with 'political correctness' which, to me, implys social pressure for a person to change their tune.
This thread seems to have wandered around some. However, I read the linked article and I think Ms Nancy Morgan is rather off-based.
We must recall, that the First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.
Ms. Morgan begins her article concerning the racist lady juror. The trial judge apparently thought she was being deliberately provoking in order to duck jury duty, hence his 'sentence' (an incorrect term by Ms. Morgan) in not dismissing said lady from the jury pool: she must continue to report until she is so dismissed (which I bet happens pretty quick). The fact that Ms. Morgan claims that the lady juror was 'sentenced' pretty well ruins her credibility or, at best, lack of knowledge on how the court system works, and the power a trial judge has to get people to serve on the jury (it is very hard to find people willing to serve on a jury; in this case, the judge was obviously using his bench-power to make an example of this woman. Otherwise, she would have left bragging about how she 'beat the jury system' and other people would have given the same type of answers).
The other examples in the article likewise have nothing to do with Congress passing a law abridging speech. Now, some of the cited individuals were certainly subject to public pressure for their views, but that is not a 'first amendment issue'.
Ms. Morgan confuses the First Amendment with 'political correctness' which, to me, implys social pressure for a person to change their tune.
This is interesting, thanks. I also read somewhere that the wording says that Congress is obligated by what the rest of the Ammendment says. Also, another ammendment says that what is not expressed as part of the central government respoinsbilites goes to the states to decide.
With this in mind I could say that the Federal Government cannot do the things it is not suppose to do and do the things it is suppose to do. How about the states then. If I use the "N" word Congress should not abridge my freedom of speech but can a state do so? If so, how so? The limits in the First Ammendment address it to Congress specifically. I believe Freedom of Speech means for me to express my views on just about anything.
Now, let me throw something for the sake of argument. If enough people incite a crowd with words to the point that a big fight will start, should the goverenment for the sake of the general safety of the people put some types of restrictions? Not so much to restrain speech but to protect lives safely? What takes precedence? I venture to guess people will differ on this one.
If a group wants to demonstrate outside city hall on an issue and another group wants to demonstrate against what the other group says, what should we do?
Would city hall be OK if they say "Group A demonstrate on the South side of City Hall and Group B on the north side"?
The first amendment protection of free speech is supposed to handcuff the government from interfering or stifling a person's speech. It does not mean that all of society has to accept whatever is said. It blows my mind that so many confuse government protections with societal acceptance.
The first amendment protection of free speech is supposed to handcuff the government from interfering or stifling a person's speech. It does not mean that all of society has to accept whatever is said. It blows my mind that so many confuse government protections with societal acceptance.
I do not if you wrote this alluding to my message but I will reply to yours.
There are differing schools of thought on this from what I have read. Some people believe many of the laws in the Constitution are specific to the Government to abide by.
Does the wording not say "Congress shall make no law"? It does. Does that mean congress has to respect freedom of speech but not make laws? Yes. However, how about the states? Can they make laws? Here is where some people claim they can.
I wrote the message above to throw food for thought. It does not mean I am confused in case you meant to reply to my message, take care.
I do not if you wrote this alluding to my message but I will reply to yours.
There are differing schools of thought on this from what I have read. Some people believe many of the laws in the Constitution are specific to the Government to abide by.
Does the wording not say "Congress shall make no law"? It does. Does that mean congress has to respect freedom of speech but not make laws? Yes. However, how about the states? Can they make laws? Here is where some people claim they can.
I wrote the message above to throw food for thought. It does not mean I am confused in case you meant to reply to my message, take care.
States used to place bans on speech, but the first amendment was reinterpreted to be a government protection of speech by the federal government. The same has been argued with regard to freedom of religion as well. By the original envisioning of the federal government's role, states were meant to be autonomous political entities, almost like countries themselves, with the federal government having minimal input. The idea is that local government best reflects the will of the people and the larger the government, the more distant it is from suiting the people's needs and wants.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not buying your BS, try someone else... and if you want to threaten me don't send it via anonymous notes, be a man and say what you want to say.
