Posts: 2,130
Threads: 2,130
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation:
0
Jesus. And there are still people who defend this loser.
Demonstrate all you want but disrupting public hearings, meeting, etc. should not be allowed and just leads to chaos and the inability for others to hear what is going on.
On the other hand demonstrating responsibly is our right as Americans to have free speech and must be protected.
Quote:President Trump has long derided the mainstream media as the “enemy of the people” and lashed out at NFL players for kneeling during the national anthem. On Tuesday, he took his attacks on free speech one step further, suggesting in an interview with a conservative news site that the act of protesting should be illegal.
That is an entirely misleading statement thanks to the source-link they included in the 2nd paragraph:
Quote:Trump made the remarks in an Oval Office interview with the Daily Caller hours after his Supreme Court nominee, Brett M. Kavanaugh, was greeted by protests on the first day of his confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill.
Theres the source link, in the words "in an Oval Office interview with the Daily Caller." Let's click it and see what the first paragraph says:
Quote:https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/04/trump...rotestors/
President Donald Trump criticized protestors who interrupted his Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing Tuesday in an exclusive Oval Office interview with The Daily Caller.
There it is, wow. He criticized protestors who interrupted his Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing Tuesday.
There is no way anybody could have been proud of what occurred inside of the hearing with the outbursts and police officers dragging people out of the hearing. I don't care what side of the isle they are on. I don't even care what the venue or event is: you run out on to the 50 yard line to scream at Zimmer for running the ball again and you can expect your ass to be dragged off the field. His quotes are not about holding a sign or simple protest and everyone should know better... If you think physically injecting yourself into situations you do not agree with should be a protected form of "protest" I don't know what to say.
I thought we already had "free speech zones"
usually down the street and around the corner from the DNC or RNC....
inside the fence....you have free speech.
outside the fence....you don't.
Over there...... I have free speech....
Over here.....I don't....
do....
dont....
Personally, I kinda like MORE liberties than less...I think of free speech like being pregnant.
you either ARE pregnant or NOT. We should either HAVE the right to speak freely....or NOT.
The espionage and sedition acts around WWI, could arrest, imprison and fine anyone doing anything that the government deemed unsavory to the war effort...including pamphlets encouraging citizens to resist the draft (Charles Schenck v. U.S.)
having said that, I grow tired of people protesting EVERY DAMN THING.
Get a damned job, and you won't have the time or strength to be a PITA.
I'm guessing that everyone here who is FOR free speech is completely OK with giving people the opportunity to speak- even if they disagree with them? How about the right to not speak- when doing so would advocate for something that a person's conscience won't allow them to support? I'm guessing those folks who are clutching their pearls in this thread would also be against that, right?
I would agree with the liberals here- if they weren't such damn hypocrites. Let's face it, they are not concerned with free speech. They are concerned with making sure that THEIR ability to speak is protected; they could give a damn about protecting the speech of those with whom they disagree. And, by the way, what liberals are doing now isn't "protesting"; it is THREATENING others who disagree with them. Or they are shutting down highways, airports, etc. It's been a LONG time since I found a liberal who was truly willing to support the free speech of someone with whom they disagreed. Meanwhile they will advocate for the silencing of anyone who doesn't spew liberal viewpoints; including calling for them to be fired, harassed or even harmed. But all of that is OK; because those people won't go to jail for their viewpoints... they'll just lose their job, reputations and possibly their good health. But the "government" won't be the one to take away their right to free, though, so it's OK... except for any Christian who doesn't want to be forced to endorse something they disagree with. Then it's OK for the government to fine/jail a person. Oh, and let's not forget about Obama's IRS going after conservatives... or journalists for that matter. When he went after a person's civil liberties, it was OK... 'cause, you know, HE was cool... and he hated the same things that other liberals hated.
The utter lack of self-awareness is sad... and no longer shocking. While some rail against the spectre of Trump limiting "free speech", many liberals cheered Obama (and various state governments) for their actual attacks on free speech. And even though it's not a "first amendment" issue, they ALSO cheer when various businesses do the same thing. So forgive me if I don't take their consternation seriously. As soon as they are willing to protect ALL speech... I'll be perfectly happy to stand with them in defending the first amendment (which, ironically, includes the freedom of religion- the right to practice my religion and put my faith into practice without government opposition). Let me know when you guys are actually interested in that and I'll be right there with you.
Quote: @pumpf said:
I'm guessing that everyone here who is FOR free speech is completely OK with giving people the opportunity to speak- even if they disagree with them? How about the right to not speak- when doing so would advocate for something that a person's conscience won't allow them to support? I'm guessing those folks who are clutching their pearls in this thread would also be against that, right?
I would agree with the liberals here- if they weren't such damn hypocrites. Let's face it, they are not concerned with free speech. They are concerned with making sure that THEIR ability to speak is protected; they could give a damn about protecting the speech of those with whom they disagree. And, by the way, what liberals are doing now isn't "protesting"; it is THREATENING others who disagree with them. Or they are shutting down highways, airports, etc. It's been a LONG time since I found a liberal who was truly willing to support the free speech of someone with whom they disagreed. Meanwhile they will advocate for the silencing of anyone who doesn't spew liberal viewpoints; including calling for them to be fired, harassed or even harmed. But all of that is OK; because those people won't go to jail for their viewpoints... they'll just lose their job, reputations and possibly their good health. But the "government" won't be the one to take away their right to free, though, so it's OK... except for any Christian who doesn't want to be forced to endorse something they disagree with. Then it's OK for the government to fine/jail a person. Oh, and let's not forget about Obama's IRS going after conservatives... or journalists for that matter. When he went after a person's civil liberties, it was OK... 'cause, you know, HE was cool... and he hated the same things that other liberals hated.
The utter lack of self-awareness is sad... and no longer shocking. While some rail against the spectre of Trump limiting "free speech", many liberals cheered Obama (and various state governments) for their actual attacks on free speech. And even though it's not a "first amendment" issue, they ALSO cheer when various businesses do the same thing. So forgive me if I don't take their consternation seriously. As soon as they are willing to protect ALL speech... I'll be perfectly happy to stand with them in defending the first amendment (which, ironically, includes the freedom of religion- the right to practice my religion and put my faith into practice without government opposition). Let me know when you guys are actually interested in that and I'll be right there with you.
I'm 100% for "the right" to be able to go to college campuses and speak. I think what they say is inflammatory, false, and oftentimes dangerous, but I don't like how young millenials will go and shout them down, use airhorns, sign petitions to keep them away, etc. Not all of us "liberals" support that shit. The solution to alt-right silliness (Anne Coulter, Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon) is to let them speak, expose their ideas, and counter those.
ALL speech should be protected.
Quote: @KingBash said:
@ pumpf said:
I'm guessing that everyone here who is FOR free speech is completely OK with giving people the opportunity to speak- even if they disagree with them? How about the right to not speak- when doing so would advocate for something that a person's conscience won't allow them to support? I'm guessing those folks who are clutching their pearls in this thread would also be against that, right?
I would agree with the liberals here- if they weren't such damn hypocrites. Let's face it, they are not concerned with free speech. They are concerned with making sure that THEIR ability to speak is protected; they could give a damn about protecting the speech of those with whom they disagree. And, by the way, what liberals are doing now isn't "protesting"; it is THREATENING others who disagree with them. Or they are shutting down highways, airports, etc. It's been a LONG time since I found a liberal who was truly willing to support the free speech of someone with whom they disagreed. Meanwhile they will advocate for the silencing of anyone who doesn't spew liberal viewpoints; including calling for them to be fired, harassed or even harmed. But all of that is OK; because those people won't go to jail for their viewpoints... they'll just lose their job, reputations and possibly their good health. But the "government" won't be the one to take away their right to free, though, so it's OK... except for any Christian who doesn't want to be forced to endorse something they disagree with. Then it's OK for the government to fine/jail a person. Oh, and let's not forget about Obama's IRS going after conservatives... or journalists for that matter. When he went after a person's civil liberties, it was OK... 'cause, you know, HE was cool... and he hated the same things that other liberals hated.
The utter lack of self-awareness is sad... and no longer shocking. While some rail against the spectre of Trump limiting "free speech", many liberals cheered Obama (and various state governments) for their actual attacks on free speech. And even though it's not a "first amendment" issue, they ALSO cheer when various businesses do the same thing. So forgive me if I don't take their consternation seriously. As soon as they are willing to protect ALL speech... I'll be perfectly happy to stand with them in defending the first amendment (which, ironically, includes the freedom of religion- the right to practice my religion and put my faith into practice without government opposition). Let me know when you guys are actually interested in that and I'll be right there with you.
I'm 100% for "the right" to be able to go to college campuses and speak. I think what they say is inflammatory, false, and oftentimes dangerous, but I don't like how young millenials will go and shout them down, use airhorns, sign petitions to keep them away, etc. Not all of us "liberals" support that shit. The solution to alt-right silliness (Anne Coulter, Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon) is to let them speak, expose their ideas, and counter those.
ALL speech should be protected.
This has been my default approach. But it's not working. Damned if there aren't a gazillion good folks eager to buy in to the hate and ignorance. There's a far right-wing, openly racist, misogynistic and anti-gay candidate--just a real scumbag--poised to win the presidential election in Brazil right now. He's being called the Trump of the Tropics and he's following Very Stable Genius' game plan. Hate now has a foothold in the world again. I'm not a fan of the shouting down, but I also know that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Quote: @BlackMagic7 said:
President Trump has long derided the mainstream media as the “enemy of the people” and lashed out at NFL players for kneeling during the national anthem. On Tuesday, he took his attacks on free speech one step further, suggesting in an interview with a conservative news site that the act of protesting should be illegal.
That is an entirely misleading statement thanks to the source-link they included in the 2nd paragraph:
Quote:Trump made the remarks in an Oval Office interview with the Daily Caller hours after his Supreme Court nominee, Brett M. Kavanaugh, was greeted by protests on the first day of his confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill.
Theres the source link, in the words "in an Oval Office interview with the Daily Caller." Let's click it and see what the first paragraph says:
Quote:https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/04/trump...rotestors/
President Donald Trump criticized protestors who interrupted his Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing Tuesday in an exclusive Oval Office interview with The Daily Caller.
There it is, wow. He criticized protestors who interrupted his Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing Tuesday.
There is no way anybody could have been proud of what occurred inside of the hearing with the outbursts and police officers dragging people out of the hearing. I don't care what side of the isle they are on. I don't even care what the venue or event is: you run out on to the 50 yard line to scream at Zimmer for running the ball again and you can expect your ass to be dragged off the field. His quotes are not about holding a sign or simple protest and everyone should know better... If you think physically injecting yourself into situations you do not agree with should be a protected form of "protest" I don't know what to say.
As I said, clickbait. Once you actually click on it, you realize it is dramatics for the effect of driving traffic and really has nothing to do with the headline. And to think there are some who believe that garbage.
|
