It's Time to Upgrade Free Speech to Fair Speech
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Geez, if we say yes to fair speech, we will miss MF while he is in the camps
He'll probably never type again with his hands all tortured off.
[youtube]zO0mHEJyC3Y[/youtube]
John McCain’s 1969 “Tokyo Rose” Propaganda Recording Released
Yeah the hero who has embarrassed every single soldier who didn't sell out to the enemy.
just like his supporters do.
oh yeah and then there is this too:
The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The five senators – Alan Cranston (Democrat of California), Dennis DeConcini (Democrat of Arizona), John Glenn (Democrat of Ohio), John McCain (Republican of Arizona), and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (Democrat of Michigan) – were accused of improperly intervening in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., Chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).
The FHLBB subsequently backed off taking action against Lincoln.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
He'll probably never type again with his hands all tortured off.
[youtube]zO0mHEJyC3Y[/youtube]
John McCain’s 1969 “Tokyo Rose” Propaganda Recording Released
Yeah the hero who has embarrassed every single soldier who didn't sell out to the enemy.
just like his supporters do.
oh yeah and then there is this too:
The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The five senators – Alan Cranston (Democrat of California), Dennis DeConcini (Democrat of Arizona), John Glenn (Democrat of Ohio), John McCain (Republican of Arizona), and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (Democrat of Michigan) – were accused of improperly intervening in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., Chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).
The FHLBB subsequently backed off taking action against Lincoln.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
Last edited:
Citing a warrior in another ill fated u.s. invasion is a real stretch, true todays rabid hawk exhibited true grit during captivity also true your pres speaking in less than glowing terms about this really irks you, free speech is like that it may actually offend.
That's what I love about free speech. It reveals. Y'all have a real nice life now, hear?
In the end my right to say and think what I please overrides your desire to not be offended! Not even sorry Mentalnazi!
The Real 'Special Snowflakes' In Campus Free-Speech Debates
Many conservatives believe that universities and colleges have become illiberal spaces that stifle free speech. They point to the violent protests at the University of California, Berkeley, that prevented Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking, or the threat of protests that led to the cancelation of Ann Coulter’s appearance at the school. With horror, they recall what happened to Charles Murray at Middlebury College and list examples of coddled students protesting the likes of Condoleezza Rice. All of which reflects, they believe, a broader culture on campuses designed to quarantine students from diverse political opinions—to secure them in their “safe spaces” with “trigger warnings” and “political correctness.” No wonder, conservatives claim, that we have a generation of special snowflakes, quick to take offense and even quicker, when challenged, to melt like snow in the hot sun.
I ran smack into this argument on Morning Joe, where I often appear. Joe Scarborough and the panelists took a dumbfounding position, and I was flummoxed in my response. I spend every day on a campus that has plenty of political conservatives. I also know faculty who worry about facing death threats because of something they’ve said or written.
Public universities like the University of Wisconsin, Madison, are suffering under the weight of a conservative legislature and Governor Scott Walker. Lawmakers are passing deeply hypocritical “campus free speech” legislation to curb the right to free speech in the name of protecting conservatives. Even the President of the United States is willing to throw the First Amendment in the trash as he urges NFL owners to fire or suspend players who refuse to stand during the national anthem. The defense of free speech seems to be highly selective, but the idea of universities and colleges as hotbeds of intolerant liberals is just plain wrong.
Thousands of lectures across the ideological spectrum happen on campuses. Students go to classes, participate in various organizations and attend lectures without incident. Imagine how many times Murray or Rice or Ben Shapiro have actually spoken on campuses without it becoming a national spectacle. The protests we have witnessed recently are not the norm, but conservatives and even some liberal columnists would have us believe otherwise.
In many ways, the university setting is the most vibrant space for the free exchange of ideas in this country. That doesn’t mean that universities and colleges are free from the passions of political debate. Just as those passions inflame partisanship in national and local politics, they show up on campuses, especially in the hearts and minds of young people who fight it out, sometimes with abandon. Hopefully in the process, they learn what Princeton president Christopher Eisgruber recently conveyed to the entering class: “The art of disagreement is not only about confrontation, but also about learning. It requires that we defend our views … and, at the same time, consider whether our views might be mistaken.”
But some speakers challenge the basic values that make this learning possible. They use the university’s commitment to the free exchange of ideas to promulgate positions that threaten the fabric of the community as a whole. They spew intolerant and hateful views.
The torch-bearing neo-Nazis shouting “Jews will not replace us” in Charlottesville are just one extreme example. Richard Spencer and Coulter are another. They add little to the debate at universities and colleges. Coulter revels in her ability to insult broadly. Spencer believes white people are superior to black people. How can I reasonably argue with someone who believes he is innately better? It's as intellectually valid as saying, “Kiss my ass.”
Campuses must resist the rhetorical sleight of hand that claims it is intolerant to disallow intolerant speech, and instead protect the conditions of equal standing and dignity that make for the free exchange of ideas in our communities. It is a delicate balance, but one universities and colleges must achieve.
Not all conservative speech is hateful speech, and we ought to be able to distinguish the difference. Most conservatives aren’t like Yiannopoulos, Spencer and Coulter. Such conservatives should, and do, speak on campuses every day. But if they hold controversial views, like any speaker of whatever ideological bent, they should expect a passionate response that may take the form of protests. And in those cases, students have every right to exercise their freedom of speech.
Campus Free Speech, Richard Spencer and Special Snowflakes | Time.com
Many conservatives believe that universities and colleges have become illiberal spaces that stifle free speech. They point to the violent protests at the University of California, Berkeley, that prevented Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking, or the threat of protests that led to the cancelation of Ann Coulter’s appearance at the school. With horror, they recall what happened to Charles Murray at Middlebury College and list examples of coddled students protesting the likes of Condoleezza Rice. All of which reflects, they believe, a broader culture on campuses designed to quarantine students from diverse political opinions—to secure them in their “safe spaces” with “trigger warnings” and “political correctness.” No wonder, conservatives claim, that we have a generation of special snowflakes, quick to take offense and even quicker, when challenged, to melt like snow in the hot sun.
I ran smack into this argument on Morning Joe, where I often appear. Joe Scarborough and the panelists took a dumbfounding position, and I was flummoxed in my response. I spend every day on a campus that has plenty of political conservatives. I also know faculty who worry about facing death threats because of something they’ve said or written.
Public universities like the University of Wisconsin, Madison, are suffering under the weight of a conservative legislature and Governor Scott Walker. Lawmakers are passing deeply hypocritical “campus free speech” legislation to curb the right to free speech in the name of protecting conservatives. Even the President of the United States is willing to throw the First Amendment in the trash as he urges NFL owners to fire or suspend players who refuse to stand during the national anthem. The defense of free speech seems to be highly selective, but the idea of universities and colleges as hotbeds of intolerant liberals is just plain wrong.
Thousands of lectures across the ideological spectrum happen on campuses. Students go to classes, participate in various organizations and attend lectures without incident. Imagine how many times Murray or Rice or Ben Shapiro have actually spoken on campuses without it becoming a national spectacle. The protests we have witnessed recently are not the norm, but conservatives and even some liberal columnists would have us believe otherwise.
In many ways, the university setting is the most vibrant space for the free exchange of ideas in this country. That doesn’t mean that universities and colleges are free from the passions of political debate. Just as those passions inflame partisanship in national and local politics, they show up on campuses, especially in the hearts and minds of young people who fight it out, sometimes with abandon. Hopefully in the process, they learn what Princeton president Christopher Eisgruber recently conveyed to the entering class: “The art of disagreement is not only about confrontation, but also about learning. It requires that we defend our views … and, at the same time, consider whether our views might be mistaken.”
But some speakers challenge the basic values that make this learning possible. They use the university’s commitment to the free exchange of ideas to promulgate positions that threaten the fabric of the community as a whole. They spew intolerant and hateful views.
The torch-bearing neo-Nazis shouting “Jews will not replace us” in Charlottesville are just one extreme example. Richard Spencer and Coulter are another. They add little to the debate at universities and colleges. Coulter revels in her ability to insult broadly. Spencer believes white people are superior to black people. How can I reasonably argue with someone who believes he is innately better? It's as intellectually valid as saying, “Kiss my ass.”
Campuses must resist the rhetorical sleight of hand that claims it is intolerant to disallow intolerant speech, and instead protect the conditions of equal standing and dignity that make for the free exchange of ideas in our communities. It is a delicate balance, but one universities and colleges must achieve.
Not all conservative speech is hateful speech, and we ought to be able to distinguish the difference. Most conservatives aren’t like Yiannopoulos, Spencer and Coulter. Such conservatives should, and do, speak on campuses every day. But if they hold controversial views, like any speaker of whatever ideological bent, they should expect a passionate response that may take the form of protests. And in those cases, students have every right to exercise their freedom of speech.
Campus Free Speech, Richard Spencer and Special Snowflakes | Time.com
What an unmitigated pile of horseshit.
Lawmakers are passing deeply hypocritical “campus free speech” legislation to curb the right to free speech in the name of protecting conservatives.
Really? An example please? Here's an article on "campus free speech legislation"
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...31/campus-free-speech-laws-ignite-the-country
Show me where this truncates anyone's right to speech? Unless of course, you are a "progressive" pos slamming people in the head with bike locks, pepper spraying people, throwing fireworks at people, burning cars, blocking roads, blowing whistles, assaulting people, smashing windows etc etc. That is NOT free speech, it is rioting.
Even the President of the United States is willing to throw the First Amendment in the trash as he urges NFL owners to fire or suspend players who refuse to stand during the national anthem.
These guys are paid to be there, and the military paid the NFL to have them on the field during the anthem. It is part of their job. Go to work, refuse to do your job because you are protesting the death of whales, or something else. You won't have a job for long. Freedom of speech is a protection from the state, not your employer.
The protests we have witnessed recently are not the norm, but conservatives and even some liberal columnists would have us believe otherwise.
Absolutely correct. Unfortunately, too many people want to make them the norm, and that includes the administrations of far too many universities that use the violence as an excuse to shut down speakers they don't like.
Campuses must resist the rhetorical sleight of hand that claims it is intolerant to disallow intolerant speech, and instead protect the conditions of equal standing and dignity that make for the free exchange of ideas in our communities. It is a delicate balance, but one universities and colleges must achieve.
And there it. Right straight out of the fascist progressives' handbook. Who chooses what speech is "intolerant"? Would you ban a pro-choice rally? They are pretty damned intolerant of unborn children. How about a rally for Islam? You don't get more intolerant than Islam. No of course not, "intolerance" to these idiots is solely a right-wing flaw.
Not all conservative speech is hateful speech, and we ought to be able to distinguish the difference.
Thus proving the point I made above. The only ideas considered "intolerant" are right wing. That requires a special kind of stupid.
But if they hold controversial views, like any speaker of whatever ideological bent, they should expect a passionate response that may take the form of protests. And in those cases, students have every right to exercise their freedom of speech.
Absolutely. Those opposed to any speaker have every right to go and demonstrate their opposition. That is free speech. Trying to shut the venue down by drowning out speakers, slamming people in the head with bike locks, pepper spraying people, throwing fireworks at people, burning cars, blocking roads, blowing whistles, assaulting people, smashing windows etc etc is the antitheses of free speech.
The guy that wrote this article is a moron. Full stop.
hahahaha, if that is your foundation to reality you might as well give it up right now. lol
I understand the frustration of those who wish they could ban stupid speech, right or left. It can make you crazy. For example:
"Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are running a child sex slave ring with bases on an island, at Comet Ping Pong Pizza, and on Mars."
"That's ridiculous. Nothing is going on on the island or at the pizza shop, and humans haven't gotten anywhere near Mars."
"Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are running a child sex slave ring with bases on an island, at Comet Ping Pong Pizza, and on Mars!"
"Do you have a single shred of credible evidence for any of that?"
"HILLARY CLINTON AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE RUNNING A CHILD SEX SLAVE RING WITH BASES ON AN ISLAND, AT COMET PING PONG PIZZA, AND ON MARS!!"
But ultimately, the only workable solution is to let the crazies rant. If your country has gotten to the point where more than a tiny fraction of the population will believe this arrant horseshit, you're already North Korea, so you might as well give it up. Most of the "believers" are trolls anyway, and the only sensible thing to do is ignore them. As we have demonstrated, and mentalfloss has refused to deal with repeatedly in this thread, it is fundamentally flawed, leads to unintended consequences, and never works anyhow.
"Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are running a child sex slave ring with bases on an island, at Comet Ping Pong Pizza, and on Mars."
"That's ridiculous. Nothing is going on on the island or at the pizza shop, and humans haven't gotten anywhere near Mars."
"Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are running a child sex slave ring with bases on an island, at Comet Ping Pong Pizza, and on Mars!"
"Do you have a single shred of credible evidence for any of that?"
"HILLARY CLINTON AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE RUNNING A CHILD SEX SLAVE RING WITH BASES ON AN ISLAND, AT COMET PING PONG PIZZA, AND ON MARS!!"
But ultimately, the only workable solution is to let the crazies rant. If your country has gotten to the point where more than a tiny fraction of the population will believe this arrant horseshit, you're already North Korea, so you might as well give it up. Most of the "believers" are trolls anyway, and the only sensible thing to do is ignore them. As we have demonstrated, and mentalfloss has refused to deal with repeatedly in this thread, it is fundamentally flawed, leads to unintended consequences, and never works anyhow.
Hey asshole, the post was about how much of a fake scientist and all around source of facts Dex is.
I gave you that greenie for the first line of your post.
I didn't quote the rest because I could only give you one!
And you forgot to add that the guy who posted the article is a moron!
Just because he believes it....
+ 10
Like you are a prime example of letting anybody but fellow members of the collective get a word in without it being trolled.
It probably comes as a surprise to the remnant of the collective that they are the reason people left here. Perhaps I should start a thread about Jews for everyone that is about Muslims. I would certainly have a lot more ammo as the Islamophobia is still stuck in blaming one person in 600AD while 100 Jews alive today could be shown to be involved in criminal activities that are more vile.
Perhaps the members in denial here need a new series, one that shows who they blindly support are feeding them a load of bullshit starting at square 1. (Americans think Trump is running anything)
News flash, when the Israeli PM meets privately behing closed doors before the 1st debate that is interference by a foreign nation. That is how fuking stupid the local collective is
[youtube]ijJipyk1ZFw[/youtube]
Do U.S. Israeli Dual Citizens Run America's Government?!?
It probably comes as a surprise to the remnant of the collective that they are the reason people left here. Perhaps I should start a thread about Jews for everyone that is about Muslims. I would certainly have a lot more ammo as the Islamophobia is still stuck in blaming one person in 600AD while 100 Jews alive today could be shown to be involved in criminal activities that are more vile.
Perhaps the members in denial here need a new series, one that shows who they blindly support are feeding them a load of bullshit starting at square 1. (Americans think Trump is running anything)
News flash, when the Israeli PM meets privately behing closed doors before the 1st debate that is interference by a foreign nation. That is how fuking stupid the local collective is
[youtube]ijJipyk1ZFw[/youtube]
Do U.S. Israeli Dual Citizens Run America's Government?!?
Last edited:
I never said I agree with the article.
But let's be honest here, if we're going to look at who's actually more dangerous to free speech, it's not millennial art students - it's Nazi sympathizers like Colpy and friends.
Watch out for that car at the next counter-protest.
But let's be honest here, if we're going to look at who's actually more dangerous to free speech, it's not millennial art students - it's Nazi sympathizers like Colpy and friends.
Watch out for that car at the next counter-protest.