Is free speech under attack?

[justjoinedtopost]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/30/mue...ing-money-to-make-false-claims-about-him.html

How much of this speech is free?

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I'm not specifically talking about blocking highways, just saying that protesters will weigh out what they're protesting against with what they're willing to do for it. IIf someone is willing to throw themselves into traffic for a cause, we should talk about why... not how much they've bungled up traffic. Not every protest is about something that makes sense, but if a large group of people is willing to risk death or arrest, chances are good they have something we should hear and understand. It doesn't make sense to stand at the sideline and rate their protesting form. If it becomes actually violent, of course, that's worth noting. But, there's a lot of gray area once peaceful protests start being treated as violent before they are too.

As far as planned parenthood goes, I think those protesters are uninformed, entitled, selfish, misogynist and classist. But, I won't try to repaint them as violent. They do often spill onto the street as well though.

It's inevitable for events that happen at a protest to be talked about, chain of events if you will. I'm not saying that one shouldn't discount what they are protesting. But, again, it comes down to how one views what they are doing to bring attention to the cause. Just like you say, if a protestor is willing to do something for a cause, it's equally okay then for someone to think that the acts taken are stupid/okay/whatever.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

You have a point.
Please do not venture into the rhetoric of dinner vs. pipe-bombs that has become popular. That should be a whole other thread if it's argued.

I think people who do unprovoked acts of aggression (violent and non such as threats, harrassment, etc) should be charged to the full extent of the law. That is NOT the way to get your message across.

 

[dilligaf0]

Yeah I'd say that is even farther from the original subject matter if Free Speech was the intended topic (which, it's in the title so...).

I apologize. I misread one of her posts. This is what I misunderstood.

I'm sorry I should have clarified I wasn't just speaking about Free Speech being under attack when it comes to the US Constitution and American laws. I was actually speaking in the broader sense of societal norms in First World countries as well as legalities. Hence, why I brought up Mark Meechan.

My mistake.
But I think this does justify the direction the thread has taken though as in "societal norms".

 

[Deleted member 37064]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/30/mue...ing-money-to-make-false-claims-about-him.html

How much of this speech is free?

I think it's outside the scope of the current discussion in many ways. Like anything of the nature, it's highly politicized and is more than likely someone attempting to use the #metoo movement to ruin someone's career, and whatever it is they're working on. It could also be a distraction to draw from something else that is going on.

Either way, I don't think it's immediately relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[AmberCutie]

I apologize. I misread one of her posts. This is what I misunderstood.

My mistake.
But I think this does justify the direction the thread has taken though as in "societal norms".

I guess in my mind Free Speech only focuses on spoken/written word. Whereas Protests are usually physical in nature, and have a lot more likelihood to include illegal actions. I know they're part of the same amendment but as individual subjects are debated quite differently.

 

[dilligaf0]

I guess in my mind Free Speech only focuses on spoken/written word. Whereas Protests are usually physical in nature, and have a lot more likelihood to include illegal actions. I know they're part of the same amendment but as individual subjects are debated quite differently.

That's why I've made a point to differentiate between non-violent and violent protest.
They really are two separate discussions.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I guess in my mind Free Speech only focuses on spoken/written word. Whereas Protests are usually physical in nature, and have a lot more likelihood to include illegal actions. I know they're part of the same amendment but as individual subjects are debated quite differently.

On the topic of free speech, there's many views on differences between "regular people", celebrities/athletes and others who are in the public eye, as well as newspaper/print media, and TV. Let's also not forget about PACs and other things in the political spectrum during this time of year.

 

[dilligaf0]

I think it's outside the scope of the current discussion in many ways. Like anything of the nature, it's highly politicized and is more than likely someone attempting to use the #metoo movement to ruin someone's career, and whatever it is they're working on. It could also be a distraction to draw from something else that is going on.

Either way, I don't think it's immediately relevant to the discussion at hand.

You lost me. Where did "me too" come in?

 

[LaceyRoyce]

Its honestly such a complex subject. I really hadn't thought about how highway closures could cause deaths..etc.

Im very glad, for the most part, that disruptive, sometimes even violent protests and uprisings happened in our history. Often they come about when ppl feel like their freedom of speech isnt being heard. But i think its a good thing.. to also consider the cost.

Speech is like that too. Words have impact. Thats why we see so much talk about online behavior and bullying. Because its costing lives. And while freedom of speech is a good and important thing, limitations on things like hate speech are there because there is a cost. Those limitations are lines in the sand and they get murky sometimes. I think overall we are busy as a society trying to balance the importance of preserving those individual freedoms with the costs of doing so.

I was reading a statement by the jewish dr who treated and helped save the man who just shot up his synagogue and he said "The gentleman didn’t appear to be a member of the Mensa society. He listens to the noise, he hears the noise. The noise was telling him his people were being slaughtered. He thought it was time to rise up and do something. He’s completely confused, and the words mean things. The words are leading to people doing things like this.”"

 

[Deleted member 37064]

You lost me. Where did "me too" come in?

If you read the article, it talks about how women are claiming they were paid to make false accusations about sexual misconduct from Mueller.

"The special counsel's office confirmed to CNBC that it learned about the "scheme" from journalists who had been approached by a woman alleging that she had been offered $20,000 by Burkman "to make accusations of sexual misconduct and workplace harassment against Robert Mueller.""

 

[dilligaf0]

On the topic of free speech, there's many views on differences between "regular people", celebrities/athletes and others who are in the public eye, as well as newspaper/print media, and TV. Let's also not forget about PACs and other things in the political spectrum during this time of year.

Every individual has the right to free speech. Their job or "celebrity" has no effect on that. It's up to individuals to decide how much weight they give to those opinions.

 

[JickyJuly]

It's inevitable for events that happen at a protest to be talked about, chain of events if you will. I'm not saying that one shouldn't discount what they are protesting. But, again, it comes down to how one views what they are doing to bring attention to the cause. Just like you say, if a protestor is willing to do something for a cause, it's equally okay then for someone to think that the acts taken are stupid/okay/whatever.

People talk about stuff, but it seems more and more, the way people talk is meant to diminish others in one way or another. Taking that into account, I think it's okay for people to think whatever they want about an event. But, to put our opinions out there as equally valid to those involved, is a big part of the problem.Talking about a protest is normal. Talking about how a protest that is non-violent is handled instead of its cause is an outright refusal to even open discussion in the first place. That highlights why a group might feel desperate enough to throw themselves into the highway in the first place.

 

[dilligaf0]

If you read the article, it talks about how women are claiming they were paid to make false accusations about sexual misconduct from Mueller.

"The special counsel's office confirmed to CNBC that it learned about the "scheme" from journalists who had been approached by a woman alleging that she had been offered $20,000 by Burkman "to make accusations of sexual misconduct and workplace harassment against Robert Mueller.""

I saw that news, I just didn't think what appears to be a political dirty trick fell into a free speech discussion.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Im very glad, for the most part, that disruptive, sometimes even violent protests and uprisings happened in our history. Often they come about when ppl feel like their freedom of speech isnt being heard. But i think its a good thing.. to also consider the cost.

"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 17872

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I think it's outside the scope of the current discussion in many ways. Like anything of the nature, it's highly politicized and is more than likely someone attempting to use the #metoo movement to ruin someone's career, and whatever it is they're working on. It could also be a distraction to draw from something else that is going on.

Either way, I don't think it's immediately relevant to the discussion at hand.

Bollocks.

Alex Jones reports on alleged conspiracy theories...
CNBC reports on alleged conspiracy theories...

?

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Every individual has the right to free speech. Their job or "celebrity" has no effect on that. It's up to individuals to decide how much weight they give to those opinions.

I'm not disagreeing that we all have a right to free speech. I was bringing up the point that many consider those "in the public eye" to have a much greater influence on others. I see the reasons for such a thought. But, I don't necessarily agree with it as we all should be able to decide for ourselves and hold ourselves accountable for them.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

People talk about stuff, but it seems more and more, the way people talk is meant to diminish others in one way or another. Taking that into account, I think it's okay for people to think whatever they want about an event. But, to put our opinions out there as equally valid to those involved, is a big part of the problem.Talking about a protest is normal. Talking about how a protest that is non-violent is handled instead of its cause is an outright refusal to even open discussion in the first place. That highlights why a group might feel desperate enough to throw themselves into the highway in the first place.

People will make decisions on things regardless of if they know or don't know specifics and will make decisions based off of the information (right or wrong info) presented to them. Thus why I have issues with "guilt in the court of public opinion" and people who are cleared of wrongdoings will forever be "guilty" in the eyes of the public.

Talking about how a protest that is non-violent is handled instead of its cause is an outright refusal to even open discussion in the first place.

I disagree, it's potentially opening a thought or discussion on why these people do what they do. It's a "risk vs reward" type thing. Some might see it and say "Wow, they're willing to do that. They must really believe in it." Others, might say "What a dumbass, their movement isn't worth them doing that." And yet, there will be others who say "I somewhat agree with what they're protesting for. But, I think they're going about it the wrong way." I honestly believe the vast majority of people fall into the "I don't really have an opinion on what it is they're protesting because of xxxxx reason. Don't care if they do it, so long as it they don't impact me."

Some may decide to look into it further the figure out why, most will more than likely not. People can't be bothered to follow what's going in the world around them. Most are too busy trying to survive, pay the bills and on to the next thing. This has gotten worse over the years.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I saw that news, I just didn't think what appears to be a political dirty trick fell into a free speech discussion.

Which is why I said that I felt it was out of scope of this discussion due to it appearing to be a dirty political trick.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Which is why I said that I felt it was out of scope of this discussion due to it appearing to be a dirty political trick.

Thank you for sharing the fact that your feelings caused you to reject the question.

(and I certainly am not suggesting anyone run off and become an Alex Jones devotee. I am simply asking if he should be allowed to speak.)

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Thank you for sharing the fact that your feelings caused you to reject the question.

(and I certainly am not suggesting anyone run off and become an Alex Jones devotee. I am simply asking if he should be allowed to speak.)

Feelings had nothing to do with the reason why I didn't answer it the way you wanted was because of the way I interpreted it. I took it as you were inquiring on the topic of the article, not whether the news site was reporting news or if it was an opinion. I believe Dilligaf may have interpreted it that way as well.

So, next time, if you'd like something answered in a specific way, how about wording your quest as such instead of leaving it open to interpretation? Unlike you, I'll leave the snide remarks out of my response since they serve no purpose in this conversation.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Feelings had nothing to do with the reason why I didn't answer it the way you wanted was because of the way I interpreted it. I took it as you were inquiring on the topic of the article, not whether the news site was reporting news or if it was an opinion. I believe Dilligaf may have interpreted it that way as well.

So, next time, if you'd like something answered in a specific way, how about wording your quest as such instead of leaving it open to interpretation? Unlike you, I'll leave the snide remarks out of my response since they serve no purpose in this conversation.

sorry. You said 'felt'. You felt it was out of the scope.

now tell me what you think, plainspeak

Alex Jones reports on alleged conspiracy theories...
CNBC reports on alleged conspiracy theories...

?

 

[AmberCutie]

Alex Jones reports on alleged conspiracy theories...
CNBC reports on alleged conspiracy theories...

Has CNBC ever posted something as assinine as "water turning frogs gay"? That alone, even setting aside the other ridiculous bullshit that AJ has said, puts him in a whole different league. Can't compare.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Has CNBC ever posted something as assinine as "water turning frogs gay"? That alone, even setting aside the other ridiculous bullshit that AJ has said, puts him in a whole different league. Can't compare.

He is a clown, no denying that.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/

 

[AmberCutie]

He is a clown, no denying that.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/

Before I try to read that whole thing, is there anywhere in that article/study that tries to say that the same thing can happen to humans, and that our government is using the chemicals in such a way?

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Before I try to read that whole thing, is there anywhere in that article/study that tries to say that the same thing can happen to humans, and that our government is using the chemicals in such a way?

“What people have to realize is that, just as with taking pharmaceuticals, they have to decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs,” he said. “Not every frog or every human will be affected by atrazine, but do you want to take a chance, what with all the other things that we know atrazine does, not just to humans but to rodents and frogs and fish?”

Again, Alex is a clown. I have read plenty of people opine that he is there to discredit; whether he is a paid disinfo agent, I don't know.

I know watching him for any length of time is beyond what I can muster. I don't trust him.

 

[AmberCutie]

Roger that.

Can you find a source with quotes from CNBC saying something similar as far as "far fetched associations" might go? Since you're comparing them, would be nice to see stuff side by side so we can understand why you think the way you do.

 

[dilligaf0]

Free speech?

https://washingtonpress.com/2018/10...note-for-new-neighbors-i-released-some-anger/ via @anteksiler


I think not. It's racism trying to hide behind free speech. Another racist caught and crying.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Can you find a source with quotes from CNBC saying something similar as far as "far fetched associations" might go? Since you're comparing them, would be nice to see stuff side by side so we can understand why you think the way you do.

Now that is a tall order.

Probably not. Completely different target audience. And I am just not informed enough about finance to know. It's pretty easy to know when Alex is rabble rousing to sell supplements (hopefully not Chinese human-flesh capsules). I don't doubt that CNBC does the same thing, but I would probably read it and think "hmm. how bout that.", while somebody in the know might see the end of the world.

 

[AmberCutie]

Free speech?

https://washingtonpress.com/2018/10...note-for-new-neighbors-i-released-some-anger/ via @anteksiler


I think not. It's racism trying to hide behind free speech. Another racist caught and crying.

Kinda reminds me of this disturbing movie.