- This topic has 5 voices and 24 replies.
-
Posts
-
If America is to speak in a way that heals, as Obama wishes, it needs the curbs and regulations that make freedom of expression real That is the tag-line for a piece in the Guardian today that was linked by Drudge. The article is essentially a screed against us stupid Americans who only watch FoxNews and believe everything they put on the air. Then he goes on to laud the restrictions on speech in Europe and is at pains to explain how restricted speech is really free. I can see about a million things wrong with his argument but my basic objection is that any restrictions on speech are a bad thing. I am an absolutist when it comes to freedoms, either they are untrammeled or it is not a freedom. I will even go so far as to say that yes, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater should be protected as free speech. I think the Constitution is pretty straightforward when it lays out what freedom of speech is,”Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” There is no ambiguity in there about unless it offends someone, or may cause people tp anic, or even if it might cause some wacko to kill somebody. It is simply Congress shall make no law abridging speech. The problem I see when we start talking about regulating speech for fairness is who gets to decided what is fair? That is the same problem when we start talking about government regulating just about anything, it is too easy for the party in power to influence things, that ges for Republicans as well as Democrats. There are some things government just should not be involved in.
I agree about Freedom of speech. It's an inalienable right in democracy.The problem is not about freedom vs rules or whatever that restrains what people want to express.To me, the problem is about each of us. Any one knows or should know that what he says and/or about the consequences his freedom of speech can cause. It's more about thinking before using your freedom or about expressing remorses after.The Art of using language to communicate effectively and persuasively is called Rhetoric. Probably forgotten or become obsolete for too many, especially those engaged in the "Res Publica". (in Latin meaning)
I agree with you that the problem is people not thinking before they talk. The answer to that is not legislation though, it is teaching people forethought. Which is probably a function of parenting. It seems like in any discussion like this, we always come back around to parenting or the lack thereof.
That article you linked to provides some very scary views arising from leftist authoritarianism. Basically the author is only telling us that if he does not agree with certain views they should not be permitted – and he has the audacity to call the other side “authoritarian”.Funny how conservatives are the ones who long for the days of the noble type of liberal such as Voltaire, who (purportedly) said "I disagree with what you have to say, but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."
Never forget that it is the left that constantly preaches tolerance while trying to silence those that disagree with them. Modern liberals are so divorced from classical liberalism that there is no comparison. Modern liberals have more in common with Marxism and Bolshevism than any other world-view. I thought the logical hoops he jumped through to equate freedom of speech with restrictions on same to be amazing. The author of the piece is a pretty good verbal gymnast if nothing else. Perhaps the scariest part of the whole piece s that there are plenty of people that agree with him and think that restricting speech will somehow make it freer. With people like that in position of authority/influence Orwell looks more and more like a prophet all the time doesn't he?
The article is essentially a screed against us stupid Americans who only watch FoxNews and believe everything they put on the air.
About Fox, it seems to be right .... ::)http://www.mediaite.com/tv/shep-smith-cuts-out-on-candian-prime-minister-fox-dont-do-french/
The article is essentially a screed against us stupid Americans who only watch FoxNews and believe everything they put on the air.
About Fox, it seems to be right .... ::)
Which part, that stupid Americans watch FOX or that they believe everything they see? Be careful, your answer is likely to reveal some of your own biases.
I think Shep Smith is a Democrat, isn't he?
I think so. He definitely leans Left often. Funny thing is, all these people who criticize Foxnews have probably never or rarely watch it. The have quite a few Left-leaning commentators and hosts. Watch any of the Saturday morning business shows and you'll clearly see it.At least Fox gives the Democrats a voice. You don't see that too often on MSNBC or the other major news networks.
FOX gets beaten up because they do give both sides a voice. They are not completely balanced but I think it infuriates the rest of the media that they even make an attempt to be fair instead of being part of the left's messaging machine.
They also might not like it because the Democrats and Leftists usually get slammed pretty good. ;D
Well, it is kind of hard to defend the indefensible. I have not heard a good reason yet on why the government is justified in taking from the productive to give to the unproductive and the left can't even say Christian charity since most of them are closet-atheists.
The article is essentially a screed against us stupid Americans who only watch FoxNews and believe everything they put on the air.
About Fox, it seems to be right .... ::)
Which part, that stupid Americans watch FOX or that they believe everything they see? Be careful, your answer is likely to reveal some of your own biases.
As you wrote this sentence, you should have the answer. 😀Personally I was referring to FoxNews only and I'm bit surprised to notice how people were reacting : the first thing coming in mind seems to check if someone is wether Republican or Democrat ... That's funny and worrying as well : as if nothing's worth to be considered outside Little-Rome ;D
I'm bit surprised to notice how people were reacting : the first thing coming in mind seems to check if someone is wether Republican or Democrat ... That's funny and worrying as well : as if nothing's worth to be considered outside Little-Rome ;D
Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here. But Republican and Democrat are the two parties in America with two different ideologies (for the most part). That's just the way it is. But I prefer the terms Right and Left rather than party names. THAT my friend is where you see the differences.
