First Ammendment Swings Both Ways

[JackLuis]

I really enjoy the freedom of expression on Literotica. However I find that folks don't always respect the 'loyal opposition'. One key feature of the American system is that no matter how silly or repugnant, you have the right to say whatever the fuck you want. No matter if anyone else agrees with you or not.

So rave on my compatriots. Let us have a free debate and respect that some people you may not agree with but, extend to them the ability to express their own view point, even Jimmy Bob and Miles.

‘Smashing Pumpkins’ frontman Billy Corgan: Social justice groups are ‘shutting down free speech’

"The tactics in the social-justice warrior movement are to stifle and shut down free speech," he said. "And I would argue in the world that I live in, which is the bareknuckle world, they're leveraging their position because they don't have power."

"It's pretty remarkable that I could say one word right now that would destroy my career," he said, as the screen displayed images of Michael Richards and Paula Deen, both of whom faced derision after using the N-word. "I could use the wrong racial epithet or say the wrong thing to you or look down at the wrong part of your body and be castigated and it's a meme and I'm a horrible person. Every day through the media, through advertising, we see people being degraded, we see people doing all sorts of things that we should be horrified at as a culture. So we've normalized all sorts of things, but we live in a world where one word could destroy your life but it's OK to, if you're a social-justice warrior, spit in somebody's face."

 

[Hard_Rom]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship.

University of California, Los Angeles Chancellor Gene Block issued a statement concerning both the value of free speech and the responsibility for civil discourse. The statement was in favor of an environment in which people coming from different beliefs and backgrounds may engage in passionate dialogue without belittling one another. In Block's view, “just because speech is constitutionally protected doesn’t mean that it is wise, fair or productive.”

In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

In 1985, Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offense principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviors of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end." Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm.

In 1999, Bernard Harcourt wrote of the collapse of the harm principle: "Today the debate is characterized by a cacophony of competing harm arguments without any way to resolve them. There is no longer an argument within the structure of the debate to resolve the competing claims of harm. The original harm principle was never equipped determine the relative importance of harms."



*If what you say is offensive but does not meet 'harm' criteria then you do not face government retaliation or censorship. Instead you are subjected to societal retaliation or censorship. You won't go to jail or be fined but may get run out of town on a rail.*

 

[phrodeau]

I really enjoy the freedom of expression on Literotica. However I find that folks don't always respect the 'loyal opposition'. One key feature of the American system is that no matter how silly or repugnant, you have the right to say whatever the fuck you want. No matter if anyone else agrees with you or not.

So rave on my compatriots. Let us have a free debate and respect that some people you may not agree with but, extend to them the ability to express their own view point, even Jimmy Bob and Miles.

‘Smashing Pumpkins’ frontman Billy Corgan: Social justice groups are ‘shutting down free speech’

I'm surprised he isn't railing against the BBC, who banned one of his songs.

 

[Aglaopheme]

He's a twat. Trust me on this one. I had no idea that Winnetka IL was the 'bare knuckled world".

 

[JackLuis]

He's a twat. Trust me on this one. I had no idea that Winnetka IL was the 'bare knuckled world".

Even "Twats" are entitled to their opinion. Though his clothing style could be improved.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Even "Twats" are entitled to their opinion. Though his clothing style could be improved.

An entitled, opinionated twat.

 

[Aglaopheme]

That's my opinion.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I always get a chuckle when people like 4est_4est_Gump (tribal birth name: Dances With Falsehoods) attempts to extrapolate that "Freedom of Speech" implies "Freedom from Criticism".

I think these so-called Social Justice Warriors have it all wrong. Let the looney tunes fringers speak, then criticize the hell out of 'em.

You will always have a segment of people attempting to shut other people down. Here on Literotica, Ishmael, Karen Kraft, Eyer, Miles and Queerbait come to mind.

 

[phrodeau]

I think we should be believing everything that people say on Alex Jones' radio show. Why not?

 

[1sickbastard]

"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners."~George Carlin.

 

[Aglaopheme]

I think we should be believing everything that people say on Alex Jones' radio show. Why not?

Don't we?

 

[Hard_Rom]

I think we should be believing everything that people say on Alex Jones' radio show. Why not?

Never heard of him.

 

[sr71plt]

Alex who?

 

[RUlookingup]

He's a twat. Trust me on this one. I had no idea that Winnetka IL was the 'bare knuckled world".

Sounds like a SJW was just outed.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Sounds like a SJW was just outed.

No, my cover is not blown at all. I'm an über undercover SJW to the nth degree.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Better to be a social justice warrior than an anti-social injustice whiner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypW9ptwviRU

 

[NOIRTRASH]

You never know where the next great idea will come from.

 

[RUlookingup]

Better to be a social justice warrior than an anti-social injustice whiner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypW9ptwviRU

The left is Klan obsessed, they just can't help themselves. Better to compartmentalize everything for their small minds.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

I always get a chuckle when people like 4est_4est_Gump (tribal birth name: Dances With Falsehoods) attempts to extrapolate that "Freedom of Speech" implies "Freedom from Criticism".

I think these so-called Social Justice Warriors have it all wrong. Let the looney tunes fringers speak, then criticize the hell out of 'em.

You will always have a segment of people attempting to shut other people down. Here on Literotica, Ishmael, Karen Kraft, Eyer, Miles and Queerbait come to mind.

When I saw the thread title, I was all set to suggest people look for my posts in the thread discussing the recent termination by ESPN of Curt Schilling... It was due to comments he didn't make on their TV or radio networks, & a firing done by & from a company it seems many others (Tirico, Bayless, etc.) many other less-qualified "analysts" & what have you are leaving on their own/by their choice, meaning ESPN will almost-surely regret it (not to mention I still feel he is justified in bringing a "wrongful-termination" suit, one you see far less than I'd think/imagine we would or should in this extremely-litigious country/world).

 

[RUlookingup]

When I saw the thread title, I was all set to suggest people look for my posts in the thread discussing the recent termination by ESPN of Curt Schilling... It was due to comments he didn't make on their TV or radio networks, & a firing done by & from a company it seems many others (Tirico, Bayless, etc.) many other less-qualified "analysts" & what have you are leaving on their own/by their choice, meaning ESPN will almost-surely regret it (not to mention I still feel he is justified in bringing a "wrongful-termination" suit, one you see far less than I'd think/imagine we would or should in this extremely-litigious country/world).

George Orwell understood what was ahead for us. Telling the truth is a revolutionary act in these times.

 

[srgreene]

One key feature of the American system is that no matter how silly or repugnant, you have the right to say whatever the fuck you want. No matter if anyone else agrees with you or not.

Paradoxically, while I have some sympathy with your sentiment, I think you have a very shallow, even self-serving, view of the First Amendment. Allow me to point out it starts with the limiting phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting ....". It says nothing about state governments, and it was only by intellectual chicanery that that the Warren Court managed to apply the restrictions on the federal government to the states (the late Raoul Berger brilliantly described this in his book, "Government By Judiciary").

Secondly, I think the legislative history of the Bill of Rights makes it clear that the framers were concerned with political expression- that is what they meant by "the freedom of speech", not that a person could go spouting f-bombs whenever he or she chose.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

George Orwell understood what was ahead for us. Telling the truth is a revolutionary act in these times.

Everybody states what they believe to be true; It is knowledge of the truth (& not stating if you lack such knowledge) that is far rarer.

 

[RUlookingup]

Everybody states what they believe to be true; It is knowledge of the truth (& not stating if you lack such knowledge) that is far rarer.

The truth is that the left has been stifling free speech for decades thereby creating the frustration being displayed. The Frankenstein monster is running amok in the village, the left can set down their pitchforks, it's too late for them.

 

[JackLuis]

Paradoxically, while I have some sympathy with your sentiment, I think you have a very shallow, even self-serving, view of the First Amendment. Allow me to point out it starts with the limiting phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting ....". It says nothing about state governments, and it was only by intellectual chicanery that that the Warren Court managed to apply the restrictions on the federal government to the states (the late Raoul Berger brilliantly described this in his book, "Government By Judiciary").

Secondly, I think the legislative history of the Bill of Rights makes it clear that the framers were concerned with political expression- that is what they meant by "the freedom of speech", not that a person could go spouting f-bombs whenever he or she chose.

The corollary is that everyone has the right to judge what you say and render their own judgment on it's worth.

"intellectual chicanery" is the history of governments all over the world.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

The truth is that the left has been stifling free speech for decades thereby creating the frustration being displayed. The Frankenstein monster is running amok in the village, the left can set down their pitchforks, it's too late for them.

The truth is:

1] There is no truth, as any two people may agree on what "the truth" is regarding a certain situation/person/etc., but if you keep tossing them topics every few (time-period), they will disagree on another.

2] Likewise, there is no "the left", as there is no other option (to primary-school students) but "the right", which again will be disagreed upon by any 2.