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 think that for what is basically public conversation - like this forum - it may be reasonable to distinguish between rational speech, versus crazed speech or hate speech.
I assume that means States and Cities CAN make laws, right?
After all, don't many here claim states rights is all important? It doesn't say "no laws anywhere". It says only Congress.
How about an EO from the POTUS? He seems fond of those. It could be called a national security emergency.
All would seem constitutional as long a Congress didn't make a law, right?
Quote apparent after he banned the CNN pool reporter from the press briefing. If there could be a case for a violation of 1A, this was certainly the one.
Watching "Comics in Cars" and thought this was a good point by Seinfeld (his direct quote). Thought this was especially on point with the current online climate where big tech are in the middle of the "not allowing" phase and showing their own intolerance. Anyone upset or outraged? What happened to the ideology of "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" that was important enough that the Founding Fathers put it as the #1 Amendment.
First, both sides have to agree on the meaning of tolerant and intolerance because people infer meaning based on the context in which the word is used.
Defending to the death the right for somebody to have free speech is tolerance with respect. That is one context in which to learn it. In this case, you both choose to sit across each other at the dinner table and can have a good time outside of controversial topics. This is one way to experience the meaning of tolerant.
However, another way to experience the word tolerant is to be forced to listen to what the other has to say. They would never choose to sit across the table from each other but something or someone forced them together. If a person feels forced, it is disrespect. In order to keep the peace, one person must stand down and somebody called this move *tolerance*. It is not.
Watching "Comics in Cars" and thought this was a good point by Seinfeld (his direct quote). Thought this was especially on point with the current online climate where big tech are in the middle of the "not allowing" phase and showing their own intolerance. Anyone upset or outraged? What happened to the ideology of "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" that was important enough that the Founding Fathers put it as the #1 Amendment.
You don't have the right to another man's property though.
Conservatives are just going to have to open their own social media platforms.
Liberals are just going to have to go to another baker when they get denied a gay wedding cake.
It is not the place of a tolerant to allow that which leads to material harm. Only the stupid or intellectually dishonest would make such an argument.
the problem with your argument comes about when one side of it tries to prove that everything they disagree with amounts to material harm-- and people on the "intellectually honest" side are proving their points with tiny flamethrowers-- against words.
you have upended reality-- give yourself a pat on the back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
If I go to a restaurant and I started yelling the most extreme offensive things imaginable. I am damn sure the restaurant will ask me to leave.
we are so far past that, however.
Quote:
It's the same logic. Tech companies are businesses and businesses need to keep a certain level of class (well, most of them).
you hit the nail on the head when you said "class."
Quote:
I will defend your right to say anything you want, but when you are using a private business as your forum, you follow their rules.
which is why public property is important, because sometimes the businesses are owned by idiots.
freedom of speech doesnt apply to the private sector, but without a culture "tolerant" of free speech to support it, the first amendment will not hold up in any context.
the whole dichotomy of public/private is just a little disingenuous. but its mostly the people who dont care about the public right to drone on about how it doesnt apply to the private.
and yes, its mostly those who care about the public right that drone on about private businesses who stand against it.
that "free to face the consequences" things works both ways-- you can ban your political opponents from your business, but you might find out very quickly that youre dangerously short on customers. ultimately, people have to accept some differences they arent in love with.
let the left figure that out the hard way, years from now.
Last edited by dynamicjson; 03-08-2019 at 05:40 AM..
so......basically only "intellectuals" can tell us what is considered "tolerant"? And everything else needs to be banned?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands
This is, simply put, stupid. It is not the place of a tolerant to allow that which leads to material harm. Only the stupid or intellectually dishonest would make such an argument.
1A: 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 a redress of grievances.
Congress can violate 1A. Individuals cannot, nor can businesses or corporations. 1A gives you the right to say what you want without government interference. It does not give you the right to be heard or tolerated.
In short, you have the right to speak freely, and I have an equal right to shout you down. You can say what you want, but you own it, and whatever consequences it generates.
I personally will not give a platform to any sort of white supremacist, be they klan or nazi neoconfederate or garden variety bigot, and I tend to speak up loudly.
Your quote about "defending your right" is from Voltaire, BTW - a Frenchman.
i dont think using violence to silence the public is a good demonstration of tolerance or freedom.
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.
