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 do think it would be a huge mistake to say anything about her physically. That said, her age should be fair game like it is with all older candidates.
I know women are sensitive about it, but her age is a public record, she has had health issues, and she is after all running for the most important position on the entire planet.
Sadly, I question just how important it is right now.
"Freedom of speech" does only refer to the government's role in regulating the speech of citizens. It has nothing to do with social backlash for one's words.
Yes, but for example does ruining a persons ability to work again, and it even being encouraged by the government though not directly connected, count?
Do the kids on that bus singing a song with the "N" word in it deserve to have their futures ruined?
Yet Obama & Co came out in favor of the school throwing the kids to the curb, all over a stupid song/lyrics.
As to the theme of this thread, if the press is restricted (self imposed or not) in the manner they can report news, how "free is our speech" in reality?
Yes, but for example does ruining a persons ability to work again, and it even being encouraged by the government though not directly connected, count?
Do the kids on that bus singing a song with the "N" word in it deserve to have their futures ruined?
Yet Obama & Co came out in favor of the school throwing the kids to the curb, all over a stupid song/lyrics.
As to the theme of this thread, if the press is restricted (self imposed or not) in the manner they can report news, how "free is our speech" in reality?
`
It's not free anymore, we don't have American dreams, and nothings fair. Where you been Vec? Lol
I went Independent long ago, and would love to get rid of all the avatars we call our representatives. Their all paid pawns with a big bark and zero bite.
Hillary is one of the worst, who knows who that scorned woman really is, nothing her campaign does surprises me. I wont be watching the next presidential Olympics.
Yes, but for example does ruining a persons ability to work again, and it even being encouraged by the government though not directly connected, count?
Do the kids on that bus singing a song with the "N" word in it deserve to have their futures ruined?
Yet Obama & Co came out in favor of the school throwing the kids to the curb, all over a stupid song/lyrics.
As to the theme of this thread, if the press is restricted (self imposed or not) in the manner they can report news, how "free is our speech" in reality?
`
That isn't a free speech issue. It may be morally wrong, and it may open one's self to a civil suit, but isn't a violation of the first amendment.
Reading through the threads here, I'm shocked at how little understanding there seems to be about what freedom of speech actually means. Again, "freedom of speech" only refers to actions taken by the government to limit the speech of its people. It doesn't cover a single thing a private person does.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of posters from this thread jumped on the Chic-fil-a "freedom of speech" controversy.
You're right, this isn't a freedom of speech issue. It's about this goofy group of women who support HRC and the goofier list of 'coded sexist' words they came up with.
As a democrat I 100% agree with you. Yet some people are taking this as if its a threat to their freedom. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from ridicule or freedom from a rebuttal. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from people verbally attacking you because they don't like what you say. There are so many whiners out there.
In my view many of you are missing the point by focusing on what the 1st Amendment applies to regarding the government.
If entities outside of government, including powerful financial interests can stifle and suppress the media into not doing their jobs, all our freedoms are diminished as a result. Political Correctness already does this to the degree people will keep views to themselves, if they know the PC police will try to ruin them for expressing it.
Suffice to say the media is already acting like 99lbs weaklings in doing proper investigate journalism compared with the Woodward & Bernstein days.
If the media with all their resources can be thwarted by power political interests to be PC (and in this case well beyond) when reporting about their candidate, we as a society are already in trouble.
Oh please this has nothing to do with PC police. This is all about capitalism and you know it.
The liberal version of the 1st Amendment now only covers PC speech. So if they detect even the slightest thing that can be perceived as racist/sexist etc., they want to try to ruin the person.
However if you look at that list they came up with, it is absurd to think some of those terms have anything to do with sexism.
Instead it looks like they thought of any of her vulnerabilities and came up with words the media is not suppose to use to highlight them.
`
So the first amendment is meant to protect citizens from other citizens?
I do think it would be a huge mistake to say anything about her physically.
I support anyone's right to say anything they want about her appearance. What I don't support is people hiding from the consequences of there free speech crying about PC police. To have freedom is to have consequences. Otherwise you never had freedom in the first place.
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.