The death of free speech

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Some of the comments on that are the kind of thing that make me extremely glad they probably live in some trailer in some woods a long way from anywhere else and they probably only ever come down the hill into town once in a blue moon, I must say. 

 

Which, "they"?  The mall cop and his helper or the former SEAL?

[Space Commander Travis]

20 minutes ago, and then said:

Which, "they"?  The mall cop and his helper or the former SEAL?

No no, the comments on the video, not the people actually in it. 

[Space Commander Travis]

Though the cop would certainly tick a few stereotype boxes, that's for sure.

[Paranormal Panther]

20 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

The point is well taken, but what one sees as a democracy another sees as an oppressive oligarchy, and this latter group may genuinely fear what happens to them if they are photographed demonstrating.

America is no stranger to people being picked up and beaten and so on after their picture appears in a newspaper -- sometimes by police, sometimes by vigilantes.  Therefore it seems to me if one wants to conceal one's identity, it is necessary to allow this as otherwise one is violating their right of free speech and assembly.  The trade off is just part of the cost of having real freedom as opposed to just giving it lip service.

That would be fine if masked people weren't almost always violent. It's no coincidence that crime and violence decreased when masks were banned. The unmasked people can protest as much as they wish if they do so in a peaceful manner. Anyone, who violates *their* rights when they exercise their First Amendment rights, should be arrested. Masks were banned when Richard Spencer (a White nationalist) spoke at Auburn. Protesters still could exercise their rights to free speech and assembly. Alabama bans masks because of past problems from the Ku Klux Klan. It's clear that such a ban is a successful way to thwart rioting by Antifa who are emboldened by their anonymity.

[Merc14]

21 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

The point is well taken, but what one sees as a democracy another sees as an oppressive oligarchy, and this latter group may genuinely fear what happens to them if they are photographed demonstrating.

America is no stranger to people being picked up and beaten and so on after their picture appears in a newspaper -- sometimes by police, sometimes by vigilantes.  Therefore it seems to me if one wants to conceal one's identity, it is necessary to allow this as otherwise one is violating their right of free speech and assembly.  The trade off is just part of the cost of having real freedom as opposed to just giving it lip service.

Please give us some examples.  Also, these people are wearing masks because they are at the protest only to commit violence with the various weapons they are carrying.

[Frank Merton]

4 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

That would be fine if masked people weren't almost always violent. It's no coincidence that crime and violence decreased when masks were banned. The unmasked people can protest as much as they wish if they do so in a peaceful manner. Anyone, who violates *their* rights when they exercise their First Amendment rights, should be arrested. Masks were banned when Richard Spencer (a White nationalist) spoke at Auburn. Protesters still could exercise their rights to free speech and assembly. Alabama bans masks because of past problems from the Ku Klux Klan. It's clear that such a ban is a successful way to thwart rioting by Antifa who are emboldened by their anonymity.

I don't know if it's true that masked people are almost always violent, and would need proof.  I know that in Vietnam I would never go anywhere near a demonstration, but of course that is a very different government -- however, I do know that there are what you call "red-necks" who identify participants in demonstrations and later "deal" with them in the States too, so that banning masks in effect denies such people their right to free speech and assembly.

You mention the KKK, and that point is a strong one.  It just shows me that to have a free state one sometimes has to allow freedom to the "baddies."

[+Hammerclaw]

9 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

I don't know if it's true that masked people are almost always violent, and would need proof.  I know that in Vietnam I would never go anywhere near a demonstration, but of course that is a very different government -- however, I do know that there are what you call "red-necks" who identify participants in demonstrations and later "deal" with them in the States too, so that banning masks in effect denies such people their right to free speech and assembly.

You mention the KKK, and that point is a strong one.  It just shows me that to have a free state one sometimes has to allow freedom to the "baddies."

Perhaps, but not the freedom of anonymity in a public place.

[Frank Merton]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

Perhaps, but not the freedom of anonymity in a public place.

Unfortunately with modern technology there no longer is such a place, and with Kings and dictators hiring informants, there never may have been.

As with a lot of things, I can see both sides of this -- whether to come down on the side of law enforcement and public peace or to come down on the side of freedom.  Freedom is not unlimited, so maybe banning masks in some situations would be a good idea.  In principle I see it as another limitation on freedom that certain types, who often holler that their freedom is being restricted, want to impose on the freedom of others.

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, Frank Merton said:

Unfortunately with modern technology there no longer is such a place, and with Kings and dictators hiring informants, there never may have been.

As with a lot of things, I can see both sides of this -- whether to come down on the side of law enforcement and public peace or to come down on the side of freedom.  Freedom is not unlimited, so maybe banning masks in some situations would be a good idea.  In principle I see it as another limitation on freedom that certain types, who often holler that their freedom is being restricted, want to impose on the freedom of others.

History is littered with individual freedoms surrendered for the good of the whole and not just in this country, either.

[Almighty Evan]

On 4/20/2017 at 1:39 AM, Yamato said:

The title description line is false too when it says right in the article that Ann Coulter will go to make her speech next week.   The death of free speech?   It's not even the death of a speech.

Whatever solution it is we're implicitly asking for over these Berkeley stories is a lot worse than whatever it is we're simultaneously complaining about.  

Like something "needs to be done" about this, of all things govt could o/w be doing.  It's like we can't find a story dumb enough to usher in the police state or a new age of govt bodyguards. 

Can't Coulter just find a single conservative out there with a gun carry permit to protect her?   Lame.  

These right wing nuts "need to" exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, likewise the people who care so much about the right wing nuts should stop pretending like the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist.

No edits to correct the statements that have since been proven FALSE?

Apparently only leftist thugs have "freedom of speech".

The ends justify the means, as long as one is fighting the E.V.I.L. "right wing nuts".

Isn't it great that local police stand down for the rioting leftists?

[aztek]

yes, today they were ordered to stay down, tomorrow they may be ordered otherwise.

[Dark_Grey]

3 minutes ago, aztek said:

yes, today they were ordered to stay down, tomorrow they may be ordered otherwise.

I think Berkley is on the brink of being de-funded, especially since all the controversy about the mayor (supporting ANTIFA,) was exposed. Berkley has now become a joke - even the ACLU was criticizing them for not allowing Ann Coulter to speak. They dun fugged up big time. If I was their mayor, I would skip town quick before the mob lights their torches...

[Phaeton80]

Wanna see how relative 'free speech' is? Request a debate on the unconstitutional control the Israeli state wields over US Congress and Administration in any of the leading universities.. Or the warcrimes perpetrated bythesame against Palestinians for that matter. See how fast all doors get slammed shut.

[aztek]

so what is your point? we should give up and bend over???  sure seems like its your philosophy 

Edited May 2, 2017 by aztek

[Dark_Grey]

1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:

Wanna see how relative 'free speech' is? Request a debate on the unconstitutional control the Israeli state wields over US Congress and Administration in any of the leading universities.. Or the warcrimes perpetrated bythesame against Palestinians for that matter. See how fast all doors get slammed shut.

"Free speech" does not mean I get access to confidential information. Beyond that, it's not up to me if someone wants to debate a topic or not which again has nothing to do with "free speech". Not sure what point you're trying to make here...

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:

Wanna see how relative 'free speech' is? Request a debate on the unconstitutional control the Israeli state wields over US Congress and Administration in any of the leading universities.. Or the warcrimes perpetrated bythesame against Palestinians for that matter. See how fast all doors get slammed shut.

You obviously don't understand the US as the speech above is the one the university would welcome and the speech you'd get attacked over would be one defending Israel's right to exist. 

[Phaeton80]

Oh please ²

[Yamato]

4 hours ago, Almighty Evan said:

No edits to correct the statements that have since been proven FALSE?

Apparently only leftist thugs have "freedom of speech".

The ends justify the means, as long as one is fighting the E.V.I.L. "right wing nuts".

Isn't it great that local police stand down for the rioting leftists?

"Apparently only leftists have freedom of speech" sounds exactly like what Ann Coulter would say, and I'll guess probably just did say.  

But whining moaning and peeing partisan politics over the Po Po not coming to save you from rioters doesn't impress me.  

I see no problem with the 2nd defending the 1st.    This is the perfect opportunity for it.   Our rights must be exercised or else people only support them in the rhetorical.   Pack heat, use heat.  That'll shake policy up next time.   But these nooz stories where we're endlessly whining for the police state because someone we agree with politically wasn't pro-tected enough are becoming a nuisance and a hyperinflated theater at this point.   The implications and inferences baked into all this limp outrage is for the federal police state to make all their boo boos better.

 

2 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

"Free speech" does not mean I get access to confidential information.

Does it mean that the fedgov does, while you believe you have "free speech"?

The point he was trying to make with his example is that you're not allowed, that some facts are too terrible to talk about.   Putting our heads in a hole in the ground and just playing along is the operative definition of "free".    "Free ignorance" would be more accurate.  We're free as all hell to do that.

[Dark_Grey]

1 minute ago, Yamato said:

The point he was trying to make with his example is that you're not allowed, that some facts are too terrible to talk about. 

What facts? If I want to make a YouTube video denying the Holocaust I can do that in this country. If I want to stand on the street corner with a sign that says "BUSH DID 9/11" I can do that too. This right has nothing to do with whether the "other side" will debate the argument. In Communist China, I can't stand on the corner and blame the Government or I'll be whisked off to an undisclosed location. Just because the Government isn't willing to talk about certain things does not mean we can't. There are many threads just here on UM discussing taboo topics and conspiracies so I'm not sure what you guys are on about with your "secret topics" argument

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

2 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

What facts? If I want to make a YouTube video denying the Holocaust I can do that in this country. If I want to stand on the street corner with a sign that says "BUSH DID 9/11" I can do that too. This right has nothing to do with whether the "other side" will debate the argument. In Communist China, I can't stand on the corner and blame the Government or I'll be whisked off to an undisclosed location. Just because the Government isn't willing to talk about certain things does not mean we can't. There are many threads just here on UM discussing taboo topics and conspiracies so I'm not sure what you guys are on about with your "secret topics" argument

Free Speech is protection from governmental reprisal for speaking, not protection from the reactionto your speech from non-governmental sources.

[Dark_Grey]

5 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Free Speech is protection from governmental reprisal for speaking, not protection from the reaction to your speech from non-governmental sources.

I like that definition. It gets more complex if we consider individual cases (whistle-blowers,) but generally yes.

[aztek]

you have free speech as long as you do not matter, and have nothing solid to back up your speech, 

a joe shmo can speak about anything he wants, no one will waste time on him, someone who is known, and has some real info, will be dealt with, not outright for speaking, but for thousands other reasons, they'll find one, if not, they'll make one up. plant drus  in a car\house, or CP on computer

[Yamato]

6 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

What facts? If I want to make a YouTube video denying the Holocaust I can do that in this country. If I want to stand on the street corner with a sign that says "BUSH DID 9/11" I can do that too. This right has nothing to do with whether the "other side" will debate the argument. In Communist China, I can't stand on the corner and blame the Government or I'll be whisked off to an undisclosed location. Just because the Government isn't willing to talk about certain things does not mean we can't. There are many threads just here on UM discussing taboo topics and conspiracies so I'm not sure what you guys are on about with your "secret topics" argument

Spoken like someone who's never been banned before for defending human rights in Palestine.  

[Yamato]

23 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Free Speech is protection from governmental reprisal for speaking, not protection from the reactionto your speech from non-governmental sources.

It doesn't have to be about govt reprisal.    What you're describing is called Protected Speech.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

23 minutes ago, Yamato said:

It doesn't have to be about govt reprisal.    What you're describing is called Protected Speech.

Okay, thanks  I thought they were synomonous.