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.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,558 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6042
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian_M
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.
A right to say it is not the same thing as being right or an opinion being valid.
Thats the flaw in this argument as well as Facebook having a TOS and the first amendment having nothing to do with it.
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.
Who determines whether someone’s rhetoric could cause material harm? Dictatorships of all colors of the political spectrum have used this to censor, imprison, or execute their detractors.
Who determines whether someone’s rhetoric could cause material harm? Dictatorships of all colors of the political spectrum have used this to censor, imprison, or execute their detractors.
The world might have been a better place if there had been a good amount of intolerance shown towards Hitler.
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.
1. Americans are crazy. Anyone who would "defend to the death" the right of some Nazi...or, for that matter, some Antifa or even BLM member to say exactly what they what...when they want...is nutso.
That's a nice talking point but has zero to do with daily life.
2. "What Happened".....well, one thing. People, or at least most people, prefer civilized dialog over the immature shouting of things "because you can".
You combat speech you don't like with MORE speech.
De-platforming, banning, etc. in the wider social context (universities, venues) is not ILLEGAL, but you're being an enemy of FREE SPEECH if you support such things. Combatting ideas also doesn't mean you, say, go to a lecture hall where a speaker is speaking and use bullhorns and sirens to drown out what that person is saying.
You absolutely have the right to COUNTER a message you don't like. But when you prevent others from hearing speech just because YOU don't like it, then you are violating the rights of OTHERS to hear what THEY might want to hear. And guess what? YOU don't get to make that decision for other people and decide which ideas they get to expose themselves to. Even really really bad ideas. Who the hell do you think you are anyway, that you get to "shut down" speech you don't like, just because you're a "private citizen" and not the government?
Why in this day and age in this country this still needs to be explained.....
The world might have been a better place if there had been a good amount of intolerance shown towards Hitler.
Ironically, many on the left today use or support similar tactics to those used by the Nazis to silence their opponents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777
In addition, hateful speech and vitriol can often incite or inspire violence. This does not seem beneficial, but destructive to society.
Where do you draw the line, in order to prevent people from being physically harmed?
I draw the line at my physical person. Until I am actually physically harmed you can say or do as you please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
1. Americans are crazy. Anyone who would "defend to the death" the right of some Nazi...or, for that matter, some Antifa or even BLM member to say exactly what they what...when they want...is nutso.
That's a nice talking point but has zero to do with daily life.
Perfect example. I think what you said here is stupid and wrong but I would never support any infringement of your right to say it.
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.
So BLM, Antifa, the DNC, the RNC, the SPLC and a whole lot of others should be banned, sanctioned and shut down? They all cause significant harm after all.
Anything anyone says can be found to be harmful, so by your logic, everyone should be banned from speaking, posting or interacting with everyone else. Sound about right?
Where does pulling a fire alarm to completely shut down a lecture you don't like?
You aren't protesting the lecture. You are shutting it down and not allowing it to proceed for the people that want to be there.
Could you imagine if this tactic was used at women's rights, pro abortion or LGBT lectures? How quickly would pulling a fire alarm be a felony that is IMMEDIATELY prosecuted. Antifa does it all the time ... and meh. ... perfectly acceptable.
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.
Of course you're right, the 1A doesn't include the quote...which is: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death you're right to say it".
I'm guessing the person you are replying to is loosely thinking 'founding father' so, in grievous (IMO) error, he inserted the quote into the 1A.
I imagine that loose thinking comes from that quote having been misattributed to Patrick Henry (perhaps because those doing that misattributing are confusing it with Henry's 'Liberty or Death' speech).
Quote:
Your quote about "defending your right" is from Voltaire, BTW - a Frenchman.
Actually, you are wrong as well.
The quote is not from Voltaire. It addition to the quote being misattributed to Henry, it has also been misattributed to Voltaire.
The quote was written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in her book "The Friends of Voltaire" (written over 125 years after Voltaire died) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs.
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.
