The entire point of freedom of speech is to protect the right to say offensive, disgusting things.Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman4248
Printable View
The entire point of freedom of speech is to protect the right to say offensive, disgusting things.Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman4248
There's protecting the right to be free from persecution from government and then there's forcing the rest of society to suppress their right to free speech in criticizing.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
The whole name of the game is that people conflate freedom from government with freedom from everyone else. That just isn't the case. You live in a society and are "A" member of that society not "THE" member of that society.
Sure, but who is forcing anyone here to suppress their criticism?Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman4248
Kansas State is a public university.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman4248
They settled out of court b/c there was a 150% chance that one of their old white owners put something awful in an email that was going to turn up in discovery. Not even necessarily something relevant to Kapernick or even race, but something that would still be responsive to a discovery request and that would cost the NFL more in PR headache than Kapernick settled for.
THis is idiotic. If you only want free speech for speech you agree with, then you are not for free speech. That's fine I guess. Lots of countries don't really have free speech but range from tolerant to pleasant (although I think it's risky over time). But just come out and say you don't think free speech is important. Don't come out and say stupid shit like "I'm for free speech, but not tolerant of people saying disgusting things." If not just out of a desire to be honest do it so you don't sound or look like a dubmass.Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman4248
I'm for you being able to say whatever you want without the government stopping you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnson85
I'm not for you being able to say whatever you want and others not being allowed to ostracize and "cancel" you. It is their free speech to do so.
If you aren't for cancel culture then you aren't for free speech. Because that's how things work in a truly democratic free speech society.
Ok. But here the entity cancelling (via expulsion) would be the university, which is the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman4248
I do agree with you that the best way to combat speech with which you disagree is by private entities/citizens using their free speech rights to disagree. Nothing wrong with that. For example, if football players want to not play in response to speech with which they disagree, have at it. Nobody can force them to play.
ETA: Generally, and to johnson85 point below, I do think we are all better off with competing dialogue instead of, when we disagree with someone's views, advocating to have that person's views suppressed and removed from the dialogue.
Having other people force/coerce/convince government entities to punish somebody that says something you disagree with is not free speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman4248
And cancel culture is not prohibited by the first amendment, but it's also not consistent with free speech. Free speech is a cultural value as well as a legal principle. If you believe in free speech as a cultural value, the response to repugnant speech or views is not to try to drive them from polite society, but to meet them in the marketplace of ideas with better views/ideas.
Bravo, sir! Well said!Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnson85
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Johnson85 again
It works both ways. You are free to be a jerk if you want to be. Others are also free to point it out and treat you like you jerk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnson85
The right to free speech protects you from government persecution. It has nothing to do with other people not persecuting you for a ridiculous viewpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Yep. Which is why I think he'll win in court. Or more likely settle. The main overall point is to those misunderstanding what free speech truly is.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
Johnson, we are talking about the right to free speech. Whatever cultural diatribe you are on can be contorted any which way. Still not law.
Belief in libertarianism is cute and all, but it only works based on a premise that is not true. That all men are created equal. This just isn't the case. Do libertarianism free speech culture does not work.
You're making the same disingenuous argument made by those on the other side.Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman4248
No one is saying the people trying to 'cancel' others don't or shouldn't have a legal right to do it. They're just saying that it is bad for society. In the same way, you can defend someone's right to say terrible things while thinking that saying terrible things is bad for society. I have not seen anyone make an argument that the government should draft laws to disable cancel culture.
There are a lot of things bad with our society. Democratic (ab)use of free speech is low on the totem pole.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarius
And once again, Kansas State is a public university.
No one here saying this kid shouldn't be expelled is advocating that his views are positive or good.
This!Quote:
Originally Posted by starkvegasdawg
Did I make any sort of claim that it was one of the greatest ills in our society? Don't change the argument here.Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman4248
All I'm saying is that yes, you have the right in the US to say basically anything you want so long as it isn't inciting violence. And others have the right to say what they want in response to that. So people on all sides can agree and disagree with anyone and anything they want. I think this kid at Kansas State is a moron and almost certainly a bad guy, and I will defend his right to say what he wants. I will also defend the right of any athlete or anyone else to say and do what they want in response (do meaning sit out, obviously not to attack him or anything). I will also defend their right to tell the university they want him expelled. I also don't think Kansas State has that legal right in this situation.
I think those constantly shouting at others and attempting to 'cancel' them are doing something counterproductive and in some cases hateful, but I will defend their right to do it. Having bad viewpoints said publicly is not a good thing for society in and of itself...but the alternative, which would be forcibly shutting down certain viewpoints, is far worse.
You have been arguing that it is consistent with free speech for the football team to be able to use their leverage to get a government entity to punish somebody for their speech. It is not other people that are misunderstanding what free speech is.Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman4248
Belief in free speech is not limited to libertarians. The most vocal proponents of free speech used to be big government democrats (arguably it was just a tool since they agreed with a lot of speech that was unpopular, but if you take them at face value, they supported free speech). And you are as confused about libertarianism as you are about free speech. It is not dependent on all men being created; all men being equal in the eyes of the law/government regardless of birth is a belief and goal of more or less all variants of libertarianism. Men being equal in other ways is not some condition precedent or even related to libertarianism.Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman4248
This! Best thing I've read in a long time. This is the spoiled,entitled group that preaches diversity but only if you think like they do. They get offended at the drop of a hat and throw temper tantrums.Quote:
Originally Posted by starkvegasdawg
You are free to say whatever you want, as long as you are ready to face the consequences. Free doesn't mean without consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by coastratdog
A statement like that is despicable. Not really sure what their code of conduct covers, but it could mean expulsion.
Everyone needs to be on notice, blatant racist crap will not be tolerated anymore. Welcome to "what should have been" the 1970s. Why throw digital gasoline on the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
Yes,and that should go for every race,creed,orientation,political views, etc...it can't be one sided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead
I don’t think he should be expelled, but Kansas State is well within their rights to do so if they do not want those viewpoints associated with their university. Free speech doesn’t protect him from being expelled.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Actually according to the Supreme Court, in numerous occasions over the decades, it most certainly does mean his free speech is protected from expulsion. It does happen but the courts consistently rule against public universities, they are an extension of the government. Just like they protect professors who make inflammatory statements that bring outrage to the offended parties and the university may even issue a statement of how they condemn the professors remarks, they also clearly claim that it?s their right to free speech and they cannot remove that professor due to their rights. You can?t wrap yourself in free speech blanket in that case to say your hands are tied and then try to censor free speech in another case, especially in cases where they are both racist type remarks. It absolutely has to be covered under the same umbrella or else you do not have free speech for all citizens, you are then weighing speech you don?t like to have heavier consequences. No matter which side of the argument you fall on it has to be protected at public universities or the constitution has to change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarius
That would be ideal but I don't know if that will ever be reality. I mean the first amendment was created when black people literally had zero rights in this country and were enslaved. The whole concept seems dated at this point, although I realize its often a feel good story to reference back to what the founding fathers wanted. Its been one sided in the opposite direction for almost the entirety of our country's existence. I won't lose sleep over a dickhead getting expelled for seeking attention and saying something horrible. That's simply what it is, and not a complete destruction of some great, unwavering concept this country was founded on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
Not directly a response to just you CC but more just a general response to the thread.
I completely understand what you're saying. I've just been negotiating deals for so long that there has to be some kind of middle ground where both parties have to make concessions or you're screwed. Once folks start drawing lines in the sand nothing gets done or bad stuff happens. I fear we are headed down a bad path with 2 sides and no middle.Quote:
Originally Posted by chef dixon
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
And as the ideology moves more extreme in either direction, the consequences are greater when the pendulum swings back the other way. That can be a destructive path...it is certainly divisive.
Free speech, legally, literally means without consequences from any govt entity as long as the speech is protected, which this students speech was (hate speech is protected). Any code of conduct that allows expulsion as a response to free speech is unlawful. A code of conduct doesn't trump the first amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead
It absolutely does. This has been litigated over and over. KSU cannot lawfully expel a student for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarius
I think it's one of those things that will self-regulate over time. Right now, people are swept up in the ability for people to have a collective voice and push for some things that make a difference. Within that are some things that we will look back at as mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
We have had other periods like this in the past; the 1950s hunt for Commies is one; our rush to condemn and ruin careers of people who spoke out against war in Iraq is another. If you think about it, this power to amplify a collective voice the way it can be via social media is still relatively new. And unfortunately, we have a global scale learning curve happening as how best to deal with it, regulate it if needed, and weed out the societal flaws.
I hope you're right but with the 24/7 news cycle and the spin of both sides fanning the flames the divide in our country is greater than its been in my lifetime and continuing to grow. Nobody seems to believe in compromise anymore and there is no dialogue, only monologue.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg
I think the lack of compromise comes straight from our leadership. I think the last D/R real compromise was when Clinton signed the Balanced Budget Act in 1997. Placing our politics on war footing has killed the system. For our general society to get back to compromise, we are going to have to do it from the top first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
That would help for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg
When you cancel someone they will find groups of like minded individuals somewhere at some point and that is when things can turn dangerous. When you are surrounded by people that think just like you without input from outside sources things can turn violent pretty quickly. Once group think takes over there isn't a lot of turning back.Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman4248
So keep cancelling but you are creating a much worse problem than some despicable and dirty tweets that ultimately don't harm anyone physically. Call them out for what they said, fine but telling them they now no longer have a voice and they will go find somewhere where they can have a voice.
Reasoning with someone instead of cancelling is always the better option IMO. Unfortunately, the left doesn't see it that way and I am afraid we have started going to far down this trail to turn back. I think you could potentially start seeing some violence with far right and left groups in the future and that will suck for everyone involved. Because groups don't care what side your on once the sh** starts. If you end up caught in the middle they won't care.
Shotgun I have been saying this verbatim for years. It is uncanny the number of shitstorms I have watched develop as a result of social media. From loss of jobs to loss of significant others and everything else imaginable that would be considered very unpleasant and distracting. There is a very good reason such things will never happen to me. No social media of any kind. Ever. I just watch and smirk and sigh.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
Are you arguing that the concept of free speech is dated and it's no big deal if it's done away with?Quote:
Originally Posted by chef dixon
I mean you can interpret it any way you want I suppose. My point was just that free speech has never been applied equally in this country since its origin. The only difference now is that a lot of people who were bullet proof for so long behind that amendment are having to get uncomfortable.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
So you get satisfaction from American having their rights infringed? I’m not denigrating you for that viewpoint, but I think we need to all be honest with what our motivations are.Quote:
Originally Posted by chef dixon
Not sure I ever looked at it that way, but I wouldn't say satisfaction. Kind of a blanket statement about general rights infringement, no? I guess you could say Jaden McNeil gets satisfaction from George Floyd's rights being infringed upon. I don't really have any motivations either, just observations and opinion for discussion. Whatever happens in this situation is out of my control. I realize most people here won't agree with me and will defend the constitution to death, but I think there's a lot of gray area beyond a document that was signed in the 1700s.Quote:
Originally Posted by turkish
Along with 24-hour news networks, of both the right and left type. Report the news, but stay away from "opinions".Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg