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.
Very good explanation. I have the right to say a mother-in-law joke and people have the right to give their opinion. I also have to face the consequences when there are to be consequences.
The latter part is the key element.
First amendment btw only bans gov't, not the private sector, from punishing anyone over speech. Private sector can punish employees for saying things they find offensive.
Like it or not, football players are employees. They have a huge platform to say what they want, and the money to back it up with programs. What they don’t have is the freedom to do whatever they want on their employers’ property. No one gets to protest at work. Why should these guys be any different?
The problem is they actually get PAID to play FOOTBALL. Not stand and listen to the national anthem. I promise you if they were kneeling during the game they'd get fired.
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?
This was carefully explained in post #6. The ONLY entity that can violate the Free Speech clause of 1A is CONGRESS. Indivduals cannot violate this law, even though thay may violate others if they prevent someone from speaking.
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.
That is not a Free Speech violation, but creating a false alarm would be a different violation.
Like it or not, football players are employees. They have a huge platform to say what they want, and the money to back it up with programs. What they don’t have is the freedom to do whatever they want on their employers’ property. No one gets to protest at work. Why should these guys be any different?
They should not, and from the moment they start their day by reporting on time pre game, to the last interview they give post game, they are representing the employer, who rightfully can restrict their actions. This includes during the national anthem.
They are free to retire from the sport when they wish, though.
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).
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.
Ironically, many on the left today use or support similar tactics to those used by the Nazis to silence their opponents.
What are the "similar tactics"? They are sending them to the gas chambers? They are suppressing freedom of the press? They are marching through cities close by temples with torches, chanting "Jews will not replace us?" They are whipping people into a frenzy at propaganda rallies by demeaning and blaming 'others' for all of the ills in society? They use militarism as a cornerstone of their philosophy? They hold military parades, displaying tanks and weapons?
Do they bow down to a leader like Hitler whose philosophy was: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it...
What are the "similar tactics"?...They are whipping people into a frenzy at propaganda rallies by demeaning and blaming 'others' for all of the ills in society?
This. Smashing storefronts, damaging property, starting fires, violently threatening people with whom they disagree
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.