Who does free speech help more: liberals or conservatives?

beezzer
reply to post by darkbake

 

Any inhibition of free speech hurts everyone.

Free expression in thoughts, words, music, poetry, internet, paper, dance, opinions; is crucial if were are to grow as a society.

Yes, this.

The only difference between MSNBC and what Robertson was doing is that Duck Dynasty is solely for entertainment not for any kind of factual edification. MSNBC purports to be a news organization. Now maybe I misunderstood and they were taking part in a punditry show, in which case, a certain amount of opinion is expected. Then, it's up to the network to determine if their opinions are rendered in good taste or not.

Obviously the 650,000 viewers of MSNBC must be just fine with it.

reply to post by ketsuko


True free speech is defending someone you disagree with.

Lucid Lunacy
I think who benefits from freedom of speech the most would be answered by asking a different question. Who benefits the least by freedom of speech; the people at the top.

Huh????? The people at the top benefit least? Please explain.

Buttonlip

Lucid Lunacy
I think who benefits from freedom of speech the most would be answered by asking a different question. Who benefits the least by freedom of speech; the people at the top.

Huh????? The people at the top benefit least? Please explain.

Free speech is often criticism

beezzer
reply to post by darkbake

 

Any inhibition of free speech hurts everyone.

Free expression in thoughts, words, music, poetry, internet, paper, dance, opinions; is crucial if were are to grow as a society.

What exactly do you consider an inhibition of free speech? Any free speech in response?

OccamsRazor04
reply to post by darkbake

 

Having spent 30+ years in Massachusetts I can tell you first hand that if you do not agree with liberals you better not speak at all because a difference of opinion will cause most of them to enrage and engage in possibly horrific attacks.

Not that conservatives are probably much better. Liberals absolutely want to stifle free speech though.

Great post!

Anyone who has been on the wrong side of the argument (and they are arguments, not debates) with both liberals and conservatives knows that liberals are far worse.

When I started arguing with Bush supporters, I can truly say that although they were not exactly friendly, it was nothing like the tidal waves of hostility that came my way when I started arguing with Obama supporters.

Conservatives argue. Liberals fight. A conservative will insult you. A liberal will punch you in the mouth and/or kick you in the groin.

beezzer
reply to post by ketsuko

 

True free speech is defending someone you disagree with.

That makes ZERO SENSE. I can only be speaking freely if I am defending someone I do not agree with????? What is Phil doing then? Who is he defending? Free speech is expressing yourself, not comparing your thoughts to those of another. How many of your posts are free speech and how many are you defending someone you do not agree with? You logic is lost on me.

reply to post by ketsuko

We are taught that if things feel good or feel right, then they must be right, but that's an entirely emotional way of doing and being and it doesn't allow or train a person to open the door to logical analysis.

I would love an example - or a few examples maybe even :-)

What are these feel good things that aren't right simply because they feel right?

Who is teaching these things?

How (and where) is logical analysis being stymied?

You say this:

The problem is that we are living in a society where true depth of thought and true intellectual debate and discussion have been tossed by the wayside.

I wonder - who is in charge of determining what is true?

This is just one part of what freedom of speech provides - a starting point. If we've already determined what's true (useful, valuable - correct...acceptable) well, that's a real problem - don't you think? Freedom of speech is for everyone - this is the beauty of it. Even for those people that you - or I - might not really want to listen to. We of course are then free to point out what's so spectacularly wrong with the way they think...oh the pure joy of it all

Has your mind never been changed by the words of someone else? I know mine has - bunches of times since I was a kid, and even now as a stubborn know it all adult. But only because I listen as much as I speak...

I've seen plenty of people even here at ATS change their thinking here or there - this is not all for nothing

Also, can't help but think (and say out loud) that if you're looking for a true, heady, intellectual debate at YouTube - maybe you're looking for love in all the wrong places

:-)

Just sayin'

Then, having said that - I LOVE reading the comments at YouTube - doesn't get any better than that. Except here - it's pretty good here too :-)

I honestly would love your thoughts on the questions I asked before I chose to blather on - I think the choices of true ascetics are fascinating

Buttonlip

beezzer
reply to post by ketsuko

 

True free speech is defending someone you disagree with.

That makes ZERO SENSE. I can only be speaking freely if I am defending someone I do not agree with????? What is Phil doing then? Who is he defending? Free speech is expressing yourself, not comparing your thoughts to those of another. How many of your posts are free speech and how many are you defending someone you do not agree with? You logic is lost on me.

And I will defend your right to post the above.

reply to post by Skyfloating

...But since having been infiltrated by soviet-style progressives, it has become the greatest enemy of free-speech and liberty...

McCarthy much?

The Pendulum has swung to the other side and what is called "libertarians" (formerly right-wing nutjobs) hold the torch of freedom.

And, yes - pandering - also free speech

Good examples Sky :-)

(Too bad McCarthy's torch of freedom got put out - imagine what kind of country we'd be living in now - and how free our speech...)

Buttonlip

Lucid Lunacy
I think who benefits from freedom of speech the most would be answered by asking a different question. Who benefits the least by freedom of speech; the people at the top.

Huh????? The people at the top benefit least? Please explain.

Freedom of speech was put in the COTUS specifically to protect the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances ... specifically against the government.

One thing that people conveniently forget about the Citizens United Case in the SCOTUS was that one of the things the people arguing for the government would be able and allowed to do if the SCOTUS had ruled the other way was ban books specifically books with political speech the government did not like.

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

...But since having been infiltrated by soviet-style progressives, it has become the greatest enemy of free-speech and liberty...

McCarthy much?

Sorry but it's true. Also, McCarthy was right.

reply to post by BrianFlanders


McCarthy was right?

Then, you don't believe in freedom of expression?

And certain groups should be legitimately targeted by the government - and singled out for some kind of disciplinary action?

Or, destroyed outright?

Because any thinking that is deemed to be dangerous (by who?) should be suppressed?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


All right, here's one - The Vice Presidential Debate. Joe Biden basically acted like an ass the whole way through, interrupted Paul Ryan all the time, said very little that was substantive.

The next day, everyone thought Biden had won even though all he had done was essentially keep his opponent from talking at all. There was no discussion, there was no actual debate of ideas or their merits. This is the new paradigm of debate. He who shouts loudest and keeps the other guy from talking wins.

As far as emotional appeal, look at any of the Internet memes running around. Most of them are shallow and calculated entirely to appeal to what makes you feel best, not about what makes you think about any idea. And, of course, people who disagree with you no longer just disagree with you, but they must be evil racist, bigoted, communist, what have you which reflects how far down the emotional path we've traveled that we cannot agree to disagree. And once you have painted someone with such an extreme (and extremely emotional) label, the door to intellectual debate closes and becomes that much harder to open. After all, at that point, you have dehumanized them and everything else they say ceases to be legitimate, freeing you from having to respond to it or give it any serious intellectual thought.

One of my favorite writers and thinkers, economist Thomas Sowell, describes where we are as a plague of Stage One thinkers. People are equipped to think about the most basic cause and effect. "If we do A, then B." And if B makes you feel good or compassionate and not mean (ask yourself how many times you hear people opposed to something "compassionate" branded as "mean"), then it must be very good to do and how could you possibly oppose it? (Remember Alan Grayson's characterization of the Republican health plan as "die quickly?" or those ads featuring someone who looks like Paul Ryan running "grandma" off a cliff or accusations that budget cuts would force seniors to eat cat food ... how mean *must* those people be is the clear emotional implication.)

The problem, as he points out, is that people often are not well equipped to think beyond B to consequences C, D, and E and beyond. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and changing one thing will have ripples throughout the rest of society. Call it the Law of Unintended Consequences. The problem is that emotional Stage One thought lets those in power blame the unintended consequences of policy A on anything other than their policy, and people eat it up.

Look at Obamacare, there are plenty who will blame it solely on the insurance companies when the problems are just as much, if not more, a consequence of government. But when people see only insurance (or Republicans) as the responsible party, they will let government "fix" it and we wind up with a completely government-run system. So, the guys who broke it, "fix" it, which is what they wanted all along. And people who can't (or don't) reason well and rely on emotion let them get away with it. Now, regardless of what your stance on such a system is, the Machiavellian manipulations done and the suffering inflicted to break people and force them into it should be a red flag. What else are they emotionally manipulating us into?

And this basically stems from the empty self-esteem movement among other things that is so prevalent in our schools. We can't let people feel bad about anything. It primes you to not want to feel bad, or make anyone else ever feel, or to even think you might make someone else feel bad, ever, and sets you up for this. What people forget is that feeling bad is part of the human experience, and we learn valuable things from it, just like we do from failure, something else we are being taught to avoid at all cost these days, but that's another post entirely.

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by BrianFlanders

 

McCarthy was right?

Then, you don't believe in freedom of expression?

And certain groups should be legitimately targeted by the government - and singled out for some kind of disciplinary action?

Or, destroyed outright?

Because any thinking that is deemed to be dangerous (by who?) should be suppressed?

edit on 1/5/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)

Yes, McCarthy was right. There were communists in the government.

I'm not sure what not wanting to have communists in sensitive power/security positions in the government has to do with freedom of expression.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


In today's world, you are the one in charge of deciding what is true because I haven't seen the news org. that will give the truth to you.

I always figure the truth lies somewhere between the left, right, and center and where logic tells me it lies.

Politically speaking in the area of "free speech".

The right tends to get testy when the left DOES things that they don't agree with.

The left tends to get testy when the right SAYS things that they don't agree with.

Seems that it's not about the existence of free speech in general but who is actually allowed to practice free speech and who is not.

Just my two cents.

reply to post by BrianFlanders


More like: Conservatives make stuff up. Liberals will attack your character. Neither address the real points. That's pretty much how all political arguments on these forums as well as on the tv go.

reply to post by ketsuko

I'm not sure what not wanting to have communists in sensitive power/security positions in the government has to do with freedom of expression.

Well, you should be able (in this country) to be a member of the Communist party and still work in government. As you should also be allowed to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood - and still be able to work in government

But of course - not everyone sees this the same way - do they? :-)

Freedom of expression includes belief - does it not? If I'm a member of the Communist party - am I less a citizen than you? Do I have fewer rights?

People were persecuted under McCarthy - many lost their jobs - or more

That's some constitution we gots - very flexible

:-)


Edit to add: Is there no presumption of innocence then? An act of actual treason proven in a fair trial is a very different than being outed, then routed based solely on philosophy or belief

reply to post by ketsuko

I always figure the truth lies somewhere between the left, right, and center and where logic tells me it lies.

A star for this part - hard to disagree with that

Even if it doesn't really answer my questions :-)

sigh...