❓ PLP Inquires❓

[Karabare]

Hot bitch.

Sexiest compression socks in the east.

 

[Justis]

Comes naturally, cooking making things up as I go with the ingredients I have. Problem solving and being flexible also come easily to me.

Work hard at, letting people in or get to know me, I have to work hard at trusting people. It’s my natural instinct too but I have spent quite some time negating that and now it is quite difficult to do so.

 

[parker77]

what i work hard at - being any good writing verse.

what comes easy - when i’m properly inspired, writing verse happens naturally.

 

[LurkingPhoenix]

05.15.20

What do you try really hard at? What just comes naturally to you?

I try really hard at cooking. I'm not naturally talented, but I try and I'm usually pleased with my results.

On a deeper level, I try hard to accept myself. I don't do a great job of that all. But I try.

What comes naturally? Caring. Loving. Being empathetic. Usually far too much to be balanced or healthy on a daily basis.

I joked once I'll never need new shoes because I spend too much time walking in others'.

 

[PrettyLilPussy19]

05.15.20

What do you try really hard at? What just comes naturally to you?

I try hard to be proud of myself and my actions (I fail about 30% of the time). I try hard at work. (Someone has to). I try hard to be a good, thoughtful, fulfilling partner. I try hard at certain silly but creative endeavours.

School always came really naturally. Communication and peacemaking seem natural. Humor, making people feel included, sleeping, and picking the best thing on the menu.

 

[PrettyLilPussy19]

05.19.20

Free Speech

Should there, realistically, be any restrictions on free speech? If so, which ones and who should get to decide?
What kind of problems come with unrestricted or unchecked free speech? In the age of the internet, should "e-speech" have the same protections or rules?

 

[jeff_is_smiling]

05.19.20

Free Speech

Should there, realistically, be any restrictions on free speech? If so, which ones and who should get to decide?
What kind of problems come with unrestricted or unchecked free speech? In the age of the internet, should "e-speech" have the same protections or rules?

Very interesting question. I've already thought about this for some time now. There's a line/quote in the movie about Ruth Bader Ginsberg, "On the Basis of Sex," that essentially says the law isn't driven by the weather, but it IS driven by the climate of the day. Meaning that times change and out-dated legal rulings need to be updated as era's change.

One of THE most important constitutional rights is that of free speech. Just about any tinkering with it has been, and should be, about relaxing and expanding the ability to practice free speech. Only the climate of the day has changed.

When originally adopted, it was assumed that people might shout and scream at the top of their lungs - but they had a right to. I think with the advent of social media, the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the use of a tool as powerful and far-reaching as the internet.

I am not of the opinion that speech needs to be modified or restricted per se, but I AM of the opinion that the use of the TOOL used to convey the speech can be. I think the courage that USED to be needed to speak your mind has been replaced by the cowardice of anonymous commentary.

I don't think the intent should be to stifle free speech. But I DO think the intent should be to FREELY allow all speech. Talk show hosts and radio/internet personalities are too powerful and they LIMIT the ability to hear both sides of an issue. They have the monopoly of the media they use as their protector for THEIR speech, by not allowing dissenting opinion in/on their network.

Free speech has already, unfortunately, but chiseled away - by the pretext of trying to uphold free speech.

 

[Justadesperatewifeandmom]

05.19.20

Free Speech

Should there, realistically, be any restrictions on free speech? If so, which ones and who should get to decide?
What kind of problems come with unrestricted or unchecked free speech? In the age of the internet, should "e-speech" have the same protections or rules?

Oh, a classic question that has been a topic of debate for over 200 years in America. I am a huge supporter of free speech, even when I don’t like it. I might be hearing someone speak, telling them to fuck off, then speak against restricting them. I support their right to speak, as I support my right to tell them to fuck off. This is for selfish reasons. The first is because I think the introduction of new ideas and new concepts are important in any group or society. The second is if I support them taking away your right to speak, it won’t be long until they are coming for me. In some countries, no one is free to speak freely, and in others, I as a female, wouldn’t be permitted to speak at all. I do not like that concept, I am overly verbose. Finally, speech is restricted through intimidation and fear. Whether it be legal ramifications or death, it is still intimidation and fear. When fear causes silence in a society, that is generally where most atrocities and injustices are committed.

The internet is a bit of a different breed. While I support the freedom of speech, I also support the rights of a business or person to regulate their establishment or property. I may not like a business to regulate wardrobe or speech, but it is their business, their property, and that is their right. It is my right to stand off their property and speak negatively of them. The internet is a mass collections of businesses with owners and physical property. I would urge Facebook, or Instagram, or CNN, or whomever to use the most lenient standards when it comes to deciding what to censor on their sites, but I support their right as a business to maintain their establishment as they see fit. I still have the right to step out and complain.

Where free speech causes problems is much harder to quantify. In the end, the burden for me is causing actual bodily harm. Credible threats, inciting riots, etc. The issue becomes how likely is it for a reasonable group of people to go and literally pick up torches after hearing it, and how reasonable is it to assume that unreasonable people will be listening and pick up torches. I swing more rigid on this than most, I think. In order for me to want someone silenced, I’d have to be very sure there is a high likelihood of actual bodily harm to occur. This also brings that gray area of hurt feelings. I have trouble support the concept that hurt feelings causes a reasonable person bodily harm, or that someone should be required to assess the mental stability of a person before speaking for fear someone unstable might be listening and cause bodily harm to themselves or others. However, I can’t deny that this is a possible outcome. It is a line that I am glad I am not the one required to draw. I do think a jury system is best equipped for defining those restrictions.

 

[AlpineFresco]

05.19.20

Free Speech

Should there, realistically, be any restrictions on free speech? If so, which ones and who should get to decide?
What kind of problems come with unrestricted or unchecked free speech? In the age of the internet, should "e-speech" have the same protections or rules?

So, clarifying that (my understanding, at least) 100% free speech is the ability to say things without state censorship or restraint, and that it's not freedom from consequence of how people perceive you afterwards, nor is it entitlement to any particular platform from which to speak...

Yes, there should be restrictions. And no, it's not easy to draw the line. Incitement to murder? Death threats, threats of sexual violence? To me, they go clearly in the realms of, 'no, that's not okay.' And, for example, the UK broadly agrees with this. Who decides where the line is drawn? People more educated than I. Can they go too far the other way? Yes. Is there a danger that in starting to restrict some things, there's a slippery slope? That's an argument against most laws, and finding the right balance is a regular point of discussion in many places.

Fully free speech often comes with the idea that the best ideas will win out, so all ideas should be out in the open, but history shows that's not how it works, and assumes that all people are acting in good faith (also clearly not the case) and have everybody's good at heart (again, not the case).

The internet? Trolls, baby. Anonymity can be freeing, but it can also lead to people saying outrageous shit they'd probably not say in person.

It always comes back to that line. I think there should be one. I'm just not smart enough, when things get grey, to say exactly where it should be drawn. But hopefully I can be smart enough to vote for people who are smart enough to have a better idea. Nothing's perfect, and all decisions are made by people, in some cases they crack down to a ridiculous and terrifying degree. What a tempestuous world.

 

[PrettyLilPussy19]

I cant wait to answer this when I have time but I'm so impressed with the depth and intelligence of the answers so far.

 

[AveryElle]

05.19.20

Free Speech

Should there, realistically, be any restrictions on free speech? If so, which ones and who should get to decide?
What kind of problems come with unrestricted or unchecked free speech? In the age of the internet, should "e-speech" have the same protections or rules?

Interesting question. Someone's right to free speech shouldn't infringe on my right to exist, which more and more, those lines are blurred. With the internet, "free speech" fuels the flames of hatred much easier than ever before. When a man used the internet to declare that he hated Jews and walked into my family's synagogue and shot 11 people simply for existing, that crossed the line. Hate speech should no longer be protected, as Americans have proven they cannot handle the responsibility of full freedom of speech. The first amendment needs to be reconsidered in the context of the United States of Stupidity. Morons all over protesting for their "rights" to get a haircut while ignoring the stripping away of worker protections for those that provide the services they're protesting for. Free speech comes with responsibilities. I don't believe in banning people you disagree with from talking at a college - shelter from reasoned opinions are different than banning hate speech. But so often it is all or nothing anymore, and it's clear we can't handle this. If we could, we couldn't be facing the worst racial and religious based crime statistics since the stats began being collected. The consequences are now far too dangerous, largely thanks to the hate spewed from the biggest platform in the US (president's office).

Additionally, the moment the SCOTUS declared that money was akin to speech, they showed us that they don't actually care about freedom to live freely in our society. If money has become speech, speech has become worthless because it means you can buy it.

 

[Mei5ter]

05.19.20

Free Speech

Should there, realistically, be any restrictions on free speech? If so, which ones and who should get to decide?
What kind of problems come with unrestricted or unchecked free speech? In the age of the internet, should "e-speech" have the same protections or rules?

I'm feeling a little contrarian today, so I'll say... Absolutely not. Free speech is a terrible idea.

Allowing any fool to express their opinions as loudly as they wish does absolutely nothing to develop ideas or stimulate debate. Instead, we get chemtrails, conspiracy theorists, Flat Earthers, and bile pumped out by extremists of every persuasion. It is completely pointless, and having to debunk this nonsense over and over again is a terrible waste of time. And, sadly, the logical conclusion to this is when the leader of one of the greatest countries of the world is heard to advocate injecting bleach to cure Covid-19.

Western democracies make a pretence of tolerating free speech, as long as 'free speech' doesn't actually achieve anything. As soon as the extremists actually incite anyone into carrying out a terrorist attack, or when people die because they've followed the latest quack medical treatment, laws are immediately passed to stop this happening - and rightly so. They are similarly tolerant of free speech in other countries...as long as what is being spoken freely matches their own beliefs or aligns with their interests. I haven't seen anyone supporting the Taliban's rights to free speech lately.

So no. Freedom to express our opinions is a privilege, not a right. We all need to ensure that right isn't abused, rather than trying to decide exactly which flavours of racial prejudice or misogyny we'll tolerate and which are Just Plain Wrong.

 

[AveryElle]

Allowing any fool to express their opinions as loudly as they wish does absolutely nothing to develop ideas or stimulate debate. Instead, we get chemtrails, conspiracy theorists, Flat Earthers, and bile pumped out by extremists of every persuasion. It is completely pointless, and having to debunk this nonsense over and over again is a terrible waste of time. And, sadly, the logical conclusion to this is when the leader of one of the greatest countries of the world is heard to advocate injecting bleach to cure Covid-19.

there are a lot of fact checkers employed today that appreciate the business.

(And, Johnson is basically what Trump supporters think Trump sounds like - a dumb person's idea of what a smart person sounds like).

 

[Matthew82]

05.19.20

Free Speech

Should there, realistically, be any restrictions on free speech? If so, which ones and who should get to decide?
What kind of problems come with unrestricted or unchecked free speech? In the age of the internet, should "e-speech" have the same protections or rules?

Use common sense, know the room and don't be mean/cruel to get your point across.

 

[tnman03]

I’m pro-free speech; it’s just too bad that when someone who twists words or lies about you causing harm gets away with it. Once upon a time calling them out and punching it out was an accepted norm, nowadays you’ll go to jail or be sued. But then punching people out for running their mouth is outdated so life moves on.

 

[gravinaux]

Free Speech

05.19.20

Free Speech

Should there, realistically, be any restrictions on free speech? If so, which ones and who should get to decide?
What kind of problems come with unrestricted or unchecked free speech? In the age of the internet, should "e-speech" have the same protections or rules?

Back in the days when the Supreme Court was not a political body, one Justice weighed in on this topic. Paraphrasing his words, he said that having free speech as a right does not mean that you are free to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. In other words free speech like all of the other rights in the Bill of Rights is not unlimited. It has been said that your freedom ends where my freedom begins. I subscribe to that thought. One of the strengths and deficiencies with the Internet is that no limitation exists on what someone says. This results in all sorts of fiction being published as though it is fact.

 

[inkandiridiumnibs]

05.19.20

Free Speech

Should there, realistically, be any restrictions on free speech? If so, which ones and who should get to decide?
What kind of problems come with unrestricted or unchecked free speech? In the age of the internet, should "e-speech" have the same protections or rules?

As it stands, "Free Speech" only Applies to Speech Against the Government. It does not apply to the General Public, Nor does it apply to a Corporations. The False Idea that I can claim Free Speech after defaming someone with Hate Speech is erroneous, and depending on the Venue, and the specific type of Hate Speech involved, could result in a Conviction, Jail Time and or Fines.

 

[BongoGal]

Wow, there are more eager censors and petty authoritarians on Lit than I would have guessed.

 

[PrettyLilPussy19]

Wow, there are more eager censors and petty authoritarians on Lit than I would have guessed.

Hmm that's not how anyones answers came off to me.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I feel like I'm in a proxy free speech battle with another pastor. They rent worship space in our church building. At the start of this whole shutdown we sent them a letter (which they said they never received, and said they never got our follow-up messages) saying we were shutting the building down and we'd waive rent until it could be used again. Welp, they decided their "free speech" was more important than our decision to shut down, so they continued to use the building, defying not just the state orders, but our property rights as well. We eventually came to an agreement that they could hold parking lot services, but I don't see us renewing their lease when it comes up. They don't respect us and we can't trust them. I'm all for free speech, but I'm under no obligation to be somebody else's platform for it.

 

[PrettyLilPussy19]

I think a lot of people have said a lot of things I agree with and a few things I disagree with.

I think there is a HUGE difference between free speech and e speech though.
Posting something hateful or purposefully misleading shouldnt be accepted by anyone but instead we all shrug and claim free speech. I'm not sure free speech and anonymous speech should go hand it hand always.

It's a complex issue with a fuck ton of grey area. But on the whole I support everyone right to free speech and their right to the consequences of their speech.

I do wish we spent more time expecting more quality instead of emotion.

Lighter subjects tomorrow!

 

[PrettyLilPussy19]

I feel like I'm in a proxy free speech battle with another pastor. They rent worship space in our church building. At the start of this whole shutdown we sent them a letter (which they said they never received, and said they never got our follow-up messages) saying we were shutting the building down and we'd waive rent until it could be used again. Welp, they decided their "free speech" was more important than our decision to shut down, so they continued to use the building, defying not just the state orders, but our property rights as well. We eventually came to an agreement that they could hold parking lot services, but I don't see us renewing their lease when it comes up. They don't respect us and we can't trust them. I'm all for free speech, but I'm under no obligation to be somebody else's platform for it.

As someone of faith, in my area at least, the whole situation has been so embarrassing.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

As someone of faith, in my area at least, the whole situation has been so embarrassing.

The vast majority of pastors in my area have suspended in-person church gatherings and have had few qualms about doing so. We're all eager to get back into our buildings, but not at the expense of the health and lives of our members.

 

[PrettyLilPussy19]

The vast majority of pastors in my area have suspended in-person church gatherings and have had few qualms about doing so. We're all eager to get back into our buildings, but not at the expense of the health and lives of our members.

You sound like us. We miss each other but want everyone to be safe. It's just one of those things that shows how big the divide is unfortunately.

 

[AveryElle]

I feel like I'm in a proxy free speech battle with another pastor. They rent worship space in our church building. At the start of this whole shutdown we sent them a letter (which they said they never received, and said they never got our follow-up messages) saying we were shutting the building down and we'd waive rent until it could be used again. Welp, they decided their "free speech" was more important than our decision to shut down, so they continued to use the building, defying not just the state orders, but our property rights as well. We eventually came to an agreement that they could hold parking lot services, but I don't see us renewing their lease when it comes up. They don't respect us and we can't trust them. I'm all for free speech, but I'm under no obligation to be somebody else's platform for it.

The fact that the motivation to open is to receive tithes tells me all I need to know. I’m thankful we don’t have that. Hopefully people open their eyes to that. But they won’t.