Who does free speech help more: liberals or conservatives?

Buttonlip

ketsuko

Buttonlip

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

An atheist president? Heaven forbid! I'd think the red U.S. would up and implode from the blasphemy their heads are trying to wrap around.

Do you remember the hell Kennedy got for being the supposed first Catholic president? Crazy country of religious freedom we have here.

Ah, yes, and I remember Romney's magic underwear, too. Crazy country of religious freedom.

Yes, I also recall that criticism came from the Christian right. The left did not care what religion he was. Funny how that works.

That's not strictly true. I saw plenty of it coming from the left to throw off the vote.

ketsuko
reply to post by Buttonlip

 

Well, since my point is that everyone should fight equally for everyone's right to speak freely, and your response is to bring up old inequalities of the past and point out how there are no "old white men" in jail, I can only assume that you want said "old white men" in jail for speaking freely. Ergo, you want revenge, not equality of speech or true freedom of speech.

Wow, you assume a lot from things I never said. I asked a question. I gave an example to back up why I was asking that question. My question is still not answered but I never said any of what you assume I am stating. Quote me where I did or admit you are just assuming waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much. Why am I not getting a simple answer to my very simple question? Why are you assuming and attacking me for illustrating my confusion????

The claim was free speech benefits the people at the top most. I am just still looking for someone to explain that to me. I never said I wanted anyone in jail. You seem angry, confused, and perhaps a little nuts.

beezzer

Buttonlip

beezzer


I never said "only" I said true free speech is defending speech you may not agree with.

Meaning, free speech is all speech. Not simply speech that you agree with.

That only leaves false free speech as the alternative. Maybe you are not reading what you are writing? Either way, you still are not making sense. TRUE FREE speech is anything spoken, not just retaliatory responses.

Um. . . . .ok.

You win the internetz.

Cheers.

That seems to be a pretty childish response. Perhaps you have no real response? What do you mean by "TRUE FREE SPEECH" if it is not in opposition to false free speech? I am willing to admit I misunderstood if you can at least attempt to explain.

ketsuko
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

No, I told you I want one who can explain to me why my unalienable rights are sacrosanct and not government's to attempt to abridge or suppress. There is a difference. If I can find that person, then I would consider voting for him or her depending on the rest of his or her stance on the issues.

PS, You weaken yourself in your own argument. You admit that today's politicians use the COTUS as so much toilet paper. So, if having an atheist means the COTUS is the only bar to oppression of rights without a satisfactory articulation of what unalienable rights are and a way to reassure me that the candidate in question believes in them ... then why am I trusting to the COTUS alone to protect me and my rights again?

edit on 5-1-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

Does that mean only believe that believe in your god have rights? There are over 400 different gods. None of them ever came to the US and told us what our rights are, did they? What rights does your god give you that I do not deserve as an atheist?

Free speech helps both equally, each side also happens to have their members that don't want to hear competing ideas and attempt to shut down those who speak them.

Without free speech everyone loses.

ketsuko

Buttonlip

ketsuko

Buttonlip

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

An atheist president? Heaven forbid! I'd think the red U.S. would up and implode from the blasphemy their heads are trying to wrap around.

Do you remember the hell Kennedy got for being the supposed first Catholic president? Crazy country of religious freedom we have here.

Ah, yes, and I remember Romney's magic underwear, too. Crazy country of religious freedom.

Yes, I also recall that criticism came from the Christian right. The left did not care what religion he was. Funny how that works.

That's not strictly true. I saw plenty of it coming from the left to throw off the vote.

LMAO, if you say so. I am sure that is why he lost.

reply to post by ketsuko


But that is different than voting for someone because they are Christian. That is what I said. You just want your President (government authority) to respect the Constitution. But see my whole point was that faith is irrelevant to that observation. Christians are just as likely to take away rights as an atheist. Bad people exist in all walks of life. Someone being Christian doesn't automatically make them more just or good than being atheist.

What you should really be saying is "I want to vote for someone based on their actions and deeds." That spells the character of a person.

One more thing, keep in mind that religion has a tendency to do EXACTLY what you fear atheists will do if put in charge of the government. Time and again highly conservative religious folks have instituted various totalitarian regimes of death and oppression to non-believers.

So I ask again, if rights being derived from God are so important to you, will this god of yours save them when they are deprived? Because if not, it is all just words.

reply to post by ketsuko

So we should have Chinese nationals, Russian nationals, Iranian nationals and whoever all else wants to work for the government working in our top secret sensitive areas because to do otherwise is to be discriminatory?

Would Russian, Chinese and Iranian nationals also be American nationals?

If they're American citizens - then I guess they get to do the same stuff other American citizens get to do

I guess... :-)

Security clearance must be there for some reason - right? I mean - golly - we have to have some way of keeping out the riff-raff

I mean - some way that involves the protection of people's rights and not just a run of the mill witch hunt

:-)

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ketsuko

 

Keep in mind that the first non-Protestant president was a HUGE deal back in the 60's and he was only RCC.

edit on 5-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

And he was assassinated..

Buttonlip

ketsuko
reply to post by Buttonlip

 

Well, since my point is that everyone should fight equally for everyone's right to speak freely, and your response is to bring up old inequalities of the past and point out how there are no "old white men" in jail, I can only assume that you want said "old white men" in jail for speaking freely. Ergo, you want revenge, not equality of speech or true freedom of speech.

Wow, you assume a lot from things I never said. I asked a question. I gave an example to back up why I was asking that question. My question is still not answered but I never said any of what you assume I am stating. Quote me where I did or admit you are just assuming waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much. Why am I not getting a simple answer to my very simple question? Why are you assuming and attacking me for illustrating my confusion????

The claim was free speech benefits the people at the top most. I am just still looking for someone to explain that to me. I never said I wanted anyone in jail. You seem angry, confused, and perhaps a little nuts.

Then why bring up the old white men in the first place?

I'm guess I'm lost as to what your original question is.

I'm not angry but I am confused at this point.

Buttonlip

ketsuko
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

No, I told you I want one who can explain to me why my unalienable rights are sacrosanct and not government's to attempt to abridge or suppress. There is a difference. If I can find that person, then I would consider voting for him or her depending on the rest of his or her stance on the issues.

PS, You weaken yourself in your own argument. You admit that today's politicians use the COTUS as so much toilet paper. So, if having an atheist means the COTUS is the only bar to oppression of rights without a satisfactory articulation of what unalienable rights are and a way to reassure me that the candidate in question believes in them ... then why am I trusting to the COTUS alone to protect me and my rights again?

edit on 5-1-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

Does that mean only believe that believe in your god have rights? There are over 400 different gods. None of them ever came to the US and told us what our rights are, did they? What rights does your god give you that I do not deserve as an atheist?

What is this "my god," "your god," "my rights," "your rights" tripe?

Unalienable rights are everyone's whether they believe in a God or not. You have freedom of speech, the right to your property and to be secure in it, the right to defend yourself, the basic right to your life, etc., the same as I do.

What I am talking about is the notion of believing that these rights are yours not because society is nice enough to allow you to have them but because they are intrinsically yours and no power on earth can or should attempt to take them from you except by your consent. Generally, this is what God-given rights refers to.

Before I vote for someone, I want to know by what belief they hold my rights to be sacrosanct and not up to anyone to infringe. As we have seen, the COTUS alone is no guarantee.

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by ketsuko

 

So we should have Chinese nationals, Russian nationals, Iranian nationals and whoever all else wants to work for the government working in our top secret sensitive areas because to do otherwise is to be discriminatory?

Would Russian, Chinese and Iranian nationals also be American nationals?

If they're American citizens - then I guess they get to do the same stuff other American citizens get to do

I guess... :-)

Security clearance must be there for some reason - right? I mean - golly - we have to have some way of keeping out the riff-raff

I mean - some way that involves the protection of people's rights and not just a run of the mill witch hunt

:-)

And I repeat - They hid it, even from their security checks.

Have you read anything about the Venona project?

There were a lot of Soviet spies embedded throughout all levels of the government. The Rosenbergs were spies, and this was largely kept from the public until the papers were made available in the '90s.

There were sensible reasons (discussed in chapter 2) for the decision to keep Venona a highly compartmentalized secret within the government. In retrospect, however, the negative consequences of this policy are glaring. Had Venona been made public, it is unlikely there would have been a forty-year campaign to prove that the Rosenbergs were innocent. The Venona messages clearly display Julius Rosenberg's role as the leader of a productive ring of Soviet spies. Nor would there have been any basis for doubting his involvement in atomic espionage, because the deciphered messages document his recruitment of his brother-in-law, David Greenglass, as a spy. It is also unlikely, had the messages been made public or even circulated more widely within the government than they did, that Ethel Rosenberg would have been executed. The Venona messages do not throw her guilt in doubt; indeed, they confirm that she was a participant in her husband's espionage and in the recruitment of her brother for atomic espionage. But they suggest that she was essentially an accessory to her husband's activity, having knowledge of it and assisting him but not acting as a principal. Had they been introduced at the Rosenberg trial, the Venona messages would have confirmed Ethel's guilt but also reduced the importance of her role.

The Venona papers, once deciphered by codebreakers, showed that we were well and truly infiltrated and all levels.

With the advent of the Cold War, however, the spies clearly identified in the Venona decryptions were the least of the problem. Coplon, Rosenberg, Greenglass, Fuchs, Soble, and Soblen were prosecuted, and the rest were eased out of the government or otherwise neutralized as threats to national security. But that still left a security nightmare. Of the 349 Americans the deciphered Venona cables revealed as having covert ties to Soviet intelligence agencies, less than half could be identified by their real names and nearly two hundred remained hidden behind cover names. American officials assumed that some of the latter surely were still working in sensitive positions. Had they been promoted and moved into policy-making jobs? Had Muse, the unidentified female agent in the OSS, succeeded in transferring to the State Department or the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the successor to the OSS? What of Source No. 19, who had been senior enough to meet privately with Churchill and Roosevelt at the Trident Conference? Was the unidentified KGB source Bibi working for one of America's foreign assistance agencies? Was Donald, the unidentified Navy captain who was a GRU (Soviet military intelligence) source, still in uniform, perhaps by this time holding the rank of admiral? And what of the two unidentified atomic spies Quantum and Pers? They had given Stalin the secrets of the uranium and plutonium bomb: were they now passing on the secrets of the even more destructive hydrogen bomb? And how about Dodger, Godmother, and Fakir? Deciphered Venona messages showed that all three had provided the KGB with information on American diplomats who specialized in Soviet matters.

McCarthy was overzealous, but he was not entirely wrong. In fact, Venona vindicated him to some degree. But, liberals and radicals have used his campaign to their own ends.

A number of liberals and radicals pointed to the excesses of McCarthy's charges as justification for rejecting the allegations altogether ...

... Consequently, Communists were depicted as innocent victims of an irrational and oppressive American government. In this sinister but widely accepted portrait of America in the 1940s and 1950s, an idealistic New Dealer (Alger Hiss) was thrown into prison on the perjured testimony of a mentally sick anti-Communist fanatic (Whittaker Chambers), innocent progressives (the Rosenbergs) were sent to the electric chair on trumped-up charges of espionage laced with anti-Semitism, and dozens of blameless civil servants had their careers ruined by the smears of a professional anti-Communist (Elizabeth Bentley).

The above is your version, yes?

Unfortunately, the success of government secrecy in this case has seriously distorted our understanding of post-World War II history. Hundreds of books and thousands of essays on McCarthyism, the federal loyalty security program, Soviet espionage, American communism, and the early Cold War have perpetuated many myths that have given Americans a warped view of the nation's history in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. The information that these messages reveal substantially revises the basis for understanding the early history of the Cold War and of America's concern with Soviet espionage and Communist subversion.

In this case, you could argue that there are two sides of the coin. I guess we'll just have to accept that.

reply to post by ketsuko


no dick dale is early classic rock to me. megadeth is early metal.

reply to post by ketsuko

What I am talking about is the notion of believing that these rights are yours not because society is nice enough to allow you to have them but because they are intrinsically yours and no power on earth can or should attempt to take them from you except by your consent. Generally, this is what God-given rights refers to.

Before I vote for someone, I want to know by what belief they hold my rights to be sacrosanct and not up to anyone to infringe. As we have seen, the COTUS alone is no guarantee.

You dodged a very pertinent question of Krazyshots. Since guarantee is paramount, what's the guarantee God will restore these Rights should they be infringed upon or even wholly deprived?

Clearly no guarantee ultimately exists either way.

"society is nice enough to allow" You belittle society my friend.

Can I ask you something? Would you also take the position morality comes from god? It seems you would need to take that position, as many religious do, in order to make the case secular society cannot hold values to be sacrosanct. Also would an atheist society fall into chaos in your view?

ketsuko


Then why bring up the old white men in the first place?

I explained why, twice now. Neither time did I even hint at retribution or revenge.

I'm guess I'm lost as to what your original question is.

Then you have no business responding to a question you do not understand do you? It was pretty simple.

I'm not angry but I am confused at this point.

For the FOURTH TIME. I am simply asking how free speech benefits those on top the least. I am not sure how to dumb this down any more than it already is. Maybe ask a smarter friend to respond and you just sit back and be quiet.

ketsuko


What is this "my god," "your god," "my rights," "your rights" tripe?

You tell me. You are the one saying rights come from god but we live in a country where people have many different gods. I for instance have no gods. Do I have no rights?

Unalienable rights are everyone's whether they believe in a God or not. You have freedom of speech, the right to your property and to be secure in it, the right to defend yourself, the basic right to your life, etc., the same as I do.

Then why would you say they are granted by one specific god?

What I am talking about is the notion of believing that these rights are yours not because society is nice enough to allow you to have them but because they are intrinsically yours and no power on earth can or should attempt to take them from you except by your consent. Generally, this is what God-given rights refers to.

But that is reality. Can you show me an example of man taking away rights in the US and any god intervening?

Before I vote for someone, I want to know by what belief they hold my rights to be sacrosanct and not up to anyone to infringe. As we have seen, the COTUS alone is no guarantee.

And you are back to making no sense. You need to pick one or the other. Let me know when your god shows up to guarantee you any rights whatsoever. According to you logic, either god hated women and black people for a long time or the rights we all share are actually granted by men.

Buttonlip
reply to post by darkbake

 

I could not agree more. The whole Duck Dynasty thing comes to mind. So many rightwing Christians are crying that Phil's free speech has been infringed upon without showing any evidence that he was silenced by the government in any way. He was not arrested or sued by the government, yet they cry. Freedom of speech is often abused by those that do not understand it. It only protects you from the government. It does not protect you from boycotts, bosses, contacts, or most importantly, free speech in response. Republicans trot this old horse out all the time while misrepresenting it. Liberals seem to understand that what they say has consequences and nothing in the constitution prevents that.

Well lets talk about freedom of speech as it is in the constitution......freedom to express views that are contrary to government actions. This mass spying on the american public then can not be justified for any reason if folks even have to choose their words carefully when talking on the cell phone, to the guy next door, typing on a site like this. When we must beware of what we say.

Lets face it, all they have to do now is more narrowly define seditious speech and we are screwed.


Another thing we need to realize is that what Phil said is an opinion that is contrary in several ways to official actions taken by the president. One could fairly ask if A&E isn't really worried about pissing off the president and in turn the IRS for not censuring a man that speaks contrary to opinions actioned by the POTUS and openly demonstrated by the POTUS as official policy.

Since I believe we live in a binary universe, I agree with Mrs. Roosevelt "with great freedom comes great responsibility." When we are abusive with our freedoms, we take away another's.

reply to post by ketsuko

I'm finally back to this -

...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.

I couldn't agree with this more - and this has been getting a lot of play the past couple years - I've read many articles and opinion pieces from different religious and political points of view, as well as from a more psychologist/sociological angle. That's not even including my conversations with cab drivers. They're usually moderate opinions regardless of which category they fall into - and that's the key right there - moderation

There are moderate voices out there - but we have to be willing to see them for what they are and hear what they're trying to say. Unfortunately - we all think we are moderate and reasonable. Then, from our moderate point of view we go ahead and decide what people are trying to say before we hear what they're saying - same as always. Happens all the time right here at ATS

Not for nothing ketsuko - but the rest of your post is littered with people you admire who are wise or under attack, then people you see as unthinking and on the attack. Wisdom from the right - mindless aggression from the left

:-)

I kid - but, I'm not wrong - it's right there in black and white

We're all guilty of this from time to time - human nature I suppose. But still - there are many that see and will agree - this country seems to be more polarized than ever before. The economy, war - who knows how many different things factor into this - but it's not our imaginations. I don't think it's being exaggerated either

I'm not sure what we can do about it. Maybe it's up to the individual to be more present in their thinking - and point these lapses in thinking out even to our own clan rather than settling into our comfy echo chambers and letting certain things slide

That's a lot of work though - and the humans can be lazy

Logarock

Well lets talk about freedom of speech as it is in the constitution......freedom to express views that are contrary to government actions. This mass spying on the american public then can not be justified for any reason if folks even have to choose their words carefully when talking on the cell phone, to the guy next door, typing on a site like this. When we must beware of what we say.

Lets face it, all they have to do now is more narrowly define seditious speech and we are screwed.

I never argued against any of this.

Another thing we need to realize is that what Phil said is an opinion that is contrary in several ways to official actions taken by the president.

How so? He never mentioned laws, he just expressed how he felt about gay people. The president does not enact lifestyles.

One could fairly ask if A&E isn't really worried about pissing off the president and in turn the IRS for not censuring a man that speaks contrary to opinions actioned by the POTUS and openly demonstrated by the POTUS as official policy.

edit on 5-1-2014 by Logarock because: n

Not really. They suspended him from a single show, then ran a marathon of him and put him right back to work. Where do you see them fearing anything there? You seem to be making up a lot and I really need you to elaborate.