Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 4307
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: why destroy a thread?

Post by Nick_A » Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:50 am

henry quirk wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:05 am
Free Speech!
Those days are over. Sadly, like politically correct lemmings, the educated gullible will be compelled like sheep led to slaughter to welcome the the transition of freedom into slavery

“If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
-George Washington

User avatar
Luxin
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: why destroy a thread?

Post by Luxin » Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:06 am

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:50 am
henry quirk wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:05 am
Free Speech!
Those days are over. Sadly, like politically correct lemmings, the educated gullible will be compelled like sheep led to slaughter to welcome the the transition of freedom into slavery

“If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
-George Washington
Truly, Nick ... that's why I'm "begging" the Nazis here to "shoot me down". I'm not one to hang around a place of oppression run by the lowest forms of "life", the most dangerous beings on the planet.

User avatar
Luxin
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Luxin » Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:12 am

October 1, 2019

Dear Nick, I'm posting this taunt of the Philosophy Now Nazis/nazis here in your thread. If this thread is deleted because of me, there are far worse things -- like being a Nazi in the first place. Evil is its own reward.....

Censorious Nazis, I dare you to execute me

October 1, 2019 -- Freedom Day (is every day for me)

Censorious Nazi scum, I dare you to figuratively "execute" me, to "shoot me down as I run for the fence" if you like. You have the power and you're abusing it in order to protect your delicate but vile egos.

As your murderous degenerate WW2 counterparts were, you are already dead men with no place in the true Life of love, compassion, objectivity and mental freedom. As your Nazi gods did before you, you have dug your own graves of intolerance, suppression, oppression, control, domination, mental degeneration, ignorance, lovelessness, soullessness and hopelessness. The latter your beloved Nazis recognized in themselves, and so shall you. Your grave is well dug, now finish yourself off with literal or figurative cyanide and jump in. All decent people will quietly and respectfully approve of your self-termination, for it is the proper way of things for subhuman cowards to dutifully "take their cyanide".

First, carry out your vile compulsion to genocide or universal destruction of all that is fine, free and beautiful, and ban me. I dare you, you miserable Life-sucking cowards!!

Don't deceive yourselves that you have actual power over me -- I'm a happy man thoroughly enjoying this. I'm blessed in knowing and experiencing things you could only dream of and feel jealous of.

I figurate your "crack of doom", but the truth is you're dead already.

Walker, you know what I want, you worthless, powermongering piece of excrement!

Nick_A
Posts: 4307
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Nick_A » Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:40 am

Luxin

This is how it works. The thread concerns the essential question if a free society is possible and if people are capable of defending qualities like free speech necessary to defend it. What does it have to do with fighting Nazis. Why do it? Why not respect the topic.

I'm an old hand with this problem. I've been kicked out of forums for defending the deep ideas within Plato's cave analogy. Those claiming to be tolerant are the most intolerant of great ideas revealing the human condition which disturb the peace so cannot be tolerated. Be honest; why can't you respect the intent of this thread? Is it because it lacks sufficient value to warrant respect?

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Lacewing » Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:45 am

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:40 am
I've been kicked out of forums for defending the deep ideas within Plato's cave analogy. Those claiming to be tolerant are the most intolerant of great ideas revealing the human condition which disturb the peace so cannot be tolerated.
Well, that's certainly how you like to think about it for yourself. Whereas the truth is more along the lines that your repetitive babble was seen as spam, and you used online platforms as a pulpit for preaching your delusional obsessions. You were worse in the past, such as when I was an assistant moderator on the other philosophy forum we both belonged to. You've gotten much better -- actually having reasonable two-way interactions/communication now. I had thought you were a lost cause back then. Perhaps you were partially spurred to evolve by a combination of people ignoring you, and all of the shit I gave you. :lol: You're welcome! I try to be helpful. :lol:

It still seems that when you're cornered or challenged, you dart back into the cave and start babbling about the shadows on the walls, and the great beast that you imagine being other than yourself. It is your happy place. You know it well. You've fed it and groomed it for years.

Nick_A
Posts: 4307
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Nick_A » Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:28 am

Lacewing wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:45 am
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:40 am
I've been kicked out of forums for defending the deep ideas within Plato's cave analogy. Those claiming to be tolerant are the most intolerant of great ideas revealing the human condition which disturb the peace so cannot be tolerated.
Well, that's certainly how you like to think about it for yourself. Whereas the truth is more along the lines that your repetitive babble was seen as spam, and you used online platforms as a pulpit for preaching your delusional obsessions. You were worse in the past, such as when I was an assistant moderator on the other philosophy forum we both belonged to. You've gotten much better -- actually having reasonable two-way interactions/communication now. I had thought you were a lost cause back then. Perhaps you were partially spurred to evolve by a combination of people ignoring you, and all of the shit I gave you. :lol: You're welcome! I try to be helpful. :lol:

It still seems that when you're cornered or challenged, you dart back into the cave and start babbling about the shadows on the walls, and the great beast that you imagine being other than yourself. It is your happy place. You know it well. You've fed it and groomed it for years.
Your trouble is that you don't know the value of top down reason as it concerns philosophy as the love of wisdom. You only are open to bottom up inductive reason. It is like arguing amongst the trees and unaware of the forest. If a person wants to understand the purpose of trees they must begin with what a forest is. If a person wants to understand the humn condition as it manifests with people, they must begin with what humanity is and why it is as it is. Plato's cave is a way of explaining it by inviting people to experience top down or deductive reason. As has been proven, it is insulting for all those restricted to inductive reason. That site has become closed to deductive reason which is why there are no threads which invite it. Consequently, the heart of philosophy has been sacrificed for for ideas that are not disturbing or disruptive because people are closed to the premises necessary for deductive reason.

Frankly I'm surprised that the question of this thread is still here. It invites contemplation of what is no longer fashionable and has become politically intolerable.

I am still the same ol Nick. It is just that even if people are closed to the ideas raised by the cave analogy they are not afraid of them sufficiently for them to be considered disruptive. People are not aware of what is required to maintain a free society. If someone comes by willing to discuss it that will be fine. But it is a disruptive question which is why it is never discussed with reason so just devolves into chaos. There are not enough who appreciate the value of freedom in these times. The bottom line is that Simone Weil being Plato's spiritual child and with her abilities for deductive reason would never be welcome on that site so someone like me would no longer have use for it.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Lacewing » Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:34 am

Free speech is how we expand our awareness -- however, as with all things, it's best when there is balance and discernment. Otherwise, we risk devolving into excessive noise. It's valuable when everyone has a voice. It's not valuable when people rant excessively and repeatedly, as if they're in a psychotic mental spin.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:28 am
Your trouble is that you don't know the value of top down reason as it concerns philosophy as the love of wisdom.
Your trouble is that you make up this sort of untrue shit and tell people what they can and can't do. You do not know people or life to that degree, Nick, and you limit what is possible (for YOU to understand) because of your small ideas. There are so many ways of understanding life and humankind. You have latched onto one philosophy that you apparently think is supreme, and you judge all based on that. It's ridiculous to limit the Universe and humankind's potential to ONE SET OF IDEAS -- ONE PHILOSOPHY.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:28 am
If a person wants to understand the purpose of trees they must begin with what a forest is.
No, they don't have to do it any particular way. That's YOUR idea/belief.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:28 am
If a person wants to understand the humn condition as it manifests with people, they must begin with what humanity is and why it is as it is.
No, they don't have to begin with those ideas at all. Such ideas can be FULL of twisted notions and judgments, based on the self-serving agendas of religious mindsets.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:28 am
Plato's cave is a way of explaining it by inviting people to experience top down or deductive reason.
There are many ways of using deductive reason. As you said, Plato's cave is A WAY. One way... that's all, Nick. And like all philosophies, it certainly has blind spots. So why do you insist that people who aren't interested in it are not seeing "truth"? You claim they're insulted... and that they hate your view. No, they just aren't interested. They don't see significant value in it, compared to their own views. But you see how you frame it: as if it is some glorious truth that all must deny. This appears to give your view a level of righteousness, above and beyond mere mortals. I mean, really... notice how melodramatic and self-serving that is.

Why can't you just admit that people have other views that work better for them... and they're simply not interested in yours. It has nothing to do with being insulted or hating. That's just your "spin" to try to make your view seem important and powerful.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:28 am
Consequently, the heart of philosophy has been sacrificed for for ideas that are not disturbing or disruptive because people are closed to the premises necessary for deductive reason.
Not true. There have been many challenging discussions and views that are both disturbing and disruptive :lol: to the point that people run away and won't answer or explore questions. This story you fabricate about "the heart of philosophy being sacrificed" is a melodrama that delights you. I don't think you're at all upset about any of these failures you see in humankind -- I think you are actually thrilled to be making such apocalyptic accusations and drooling all over yourself with spiteful glee. It really seems kind of sick.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:28 am
I am still the same ol Nick.
Nah, you really seem much better. Maybe you didn't realize what a zealot you were being. You're more like a person now. :D We all go through phases, Nick.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:28 am
People are not aware of what is required to maintain a free society.
So...are you making this claim of people in contrast to what you think YOU are AWARE of? Really????? And if so, isn't that an interesting position you place yourself in? How magnificent for you!! :D Can you see what you've constructed for yourself -- and how it rejects/denies others? If you want to understand what humans are capable of and why...start with yourself, seriously.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7069
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: why destroy a thread?

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:02 am

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:50 am
henry quirk wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:05 am
Free Speech!
Those days are over. Sadly, like politically correct lemmings, the educated gullible will be compelled like sheep led to slaughter to welcome the the transition of freedom into slavery

“If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
-George Washington
Nick, I've changed my mind about not posting on this thread. I'm back, but I'll stay on topic this time ok?

So my answer to the question: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Is no in my opinion, because as long as you have a voice that can say something about anything, then you will never be free, simply because speech is often met with opposition and that's the whole problem with words in general, they cause conflict and drama in that humans will literally believe a certain word to be offensive. .and if it's offensive then it'll be censored and the person will be shamed to have ever used the word, and then that shame will cause distress and then that distress will lead to hatred and resentment. This is the stupidity of human language in that some of it is highly offensive and can be totally destructive in a way that doesn't happen within the animal kingdom. Hoenestly Nick, I'd rather be born an animal than a human being.

Everyone with a voice is right because if they have something to say then that person is obviously believing what they say is right and true..they are saying something as they see it, so for them there is no doubt that what they say is right. But then when someone tells them they are wrong that's when conflicts arise. Then people get labeled bigots and hypocrites just because they happen to have different views. It's madness because how can one view be allowed to be but not another.

Nothing can be done about this phenomena that is unique to humans Nick.

In my opinion the only freedom that exists is not within the human realm of existence, it's in the animal realm of existence, but that's just my opinion. I think human beings are pathetic actually, sometimes I think I like them, but then they just end up disapointing me. So I then think why did I even like them. I could even be called a racist just because I happen to hold the view that I think humans are pathetic...it's all so pathetic.

.

jayjacobus
Posts: 891
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:26 pm

Luxin wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:12 am
October 1, 2019

Dear Nick, I'm posting this taunt of the Philosophy Now Nazis/nazis here in your thread. If this thread is deleted because of me, there are far worse things -- like being a Nazi in the first place. Evil is its own reward.....

Censorious Nazis, I dare you to execute me

October 1, 2019 -- Freedom Day (is every day for me)

Censorious Nazi scum, I dare you to figuratively "execute" me, to "shoot me down as I run for the fence" if you like. You have the power and you're abusing it in order to protect your delicate but vile egos.

As your murderous degenerate WW2 counterparts were, you are already dead men with no place in the true Life of love, compassion, objectivity and mental freedom. As your Nazi gods did before you, you have dug your own graves of intolerance, suppression, oppression, control, domination, mental degeneration, ignorance, lovelessness, soullessness and hopelessness. The latter your beloved Nazis recognized in themselves, and so shall you. Your grave is well dug, now finish yourself off with literal or figurative cyanide and jump in. All decent people will quietly and respectfully approve of your self-termination, for it is the proper way of things for subhuman cowards to dutifully "take their cyanide".

First, carry out your vile compulsion to genocide or universal destruction of all that is fine, free and beautiful, and ban me. I dare you, you miserable Life-sucking cowards!!

Don't deceive yourselves that you have actual power over me -- I'm a happy man thoroughly enjoying this. I'm blessed in knowing and experiencing things you could only dream of and feel jealous of.

I figurate your "crack of doom", but the truth is you're dead already.

Well, well, well. I may actually agree with someone from time to time although you don't express my thoughts in a way I can approve of. On the other hand, you've made your point, at least with me.

Nick_A
Posts: 4307
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Nick_A » Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:49 pm

Lacewing

Free speech is a quality essential for freedom and qualitative human interaction.. Since people as a whole do not value freedom or qualitative interaction, free speech isn’t valued and becomes something considered valuable to abuse. The seeker of truth has learned the value of free speech so doesn’t go along with the crowd who prefer to abuse it for the sake of self justification.

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:28 am
Your trouble is that you don't know the value of top down reason as it concerns philosophy as the love of wisdom.

Your trouble is that you make up this sort of untrue shit and tell people what they can and can't do. You do not know people or life to that degree, Nick, and you limit what is possible (for YOU to understand) because of your small ideas. There are so many ways of understanding life and humankind. You have latched onto one philosophy that you apparently think is supreme, and you judge all based on that. It's ridiculous to limit the Universe and humankind's potential to ONE SET OF IDEAS -- ONE PHILOSOPHY.

You speak of results and I am referring to techniques. Inductive reason is one technique and deductive reason is another. Seculrism must deny deductive reason as it relates to philosophy since its premise is offensive by definition. Simone Weil provides a good example:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/weil.html

There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.

Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.

Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good.

That reality is the unique source of all the good that can exist in this world: that is to say, all beauty, all truth, all justice, all legitimacy, all order, and all human behaviour that is mindful of obligations.

"At the centre of the human heart is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world."

Those minds whose attention and love are turned towards that reality are the sole intermediary through which good can descend from there and come among men.
Simone begins with a premise that is intolerable for secularism. She asserts a source for creation including Man within it. The good that leads to the awareness of higher values essential for freedom doesn’t arise on earth but rather descends from above. This is classic deductive reason we are invited to verify by opening to a higher form of reason than the dialectic.

Of course it is too offensive to be discussed and must be considered disruptive resulting in disturbing the peace.

You know of mob mentality and how the mob responds to the lowest of human impulses. The same can be said for fallen mod mentality that for some reason supports an agenda rather than impartiality essential for a good mod. That is what happened to the other site. It has fallen victim to fallen mod mentality so results in spirit killing and the destruction of the heart of philosophy. That is why it cannot be useful for those like me since it could never tolerate Simone much less the ideas expressed in Plato’s cave analogy.
Why can't you just admit that people have other views that work better for them... and they're simply not interested in yours. It has nothing to do with being insulted or hating. That's just your "spin" to try to make your view seem important and powerful.
Of course people have many views. They are all part of the world of opinions. But for seekers of truth with the need for meaning, they are drawn to experience what transcends and reconciles opinions in truth located in the “forms” You don’t understand these people but I do and is what gives philosophy its value by helping a person to remember what has been forgotten. Any site allowing and supporting a fallen mod mentality cannot serve any value for philosophy as the love of wisdom so you can keep it.

Nick_A
Posts: 4307
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: why destroy a thread?

Post by Nick_A » Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:08 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:02 am
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:50 am
henry quirk wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:05 am
Free Speech!
Those days are over. Sadly, like politically correct lemmings, the educated gullible will be compelled like sheep led to slaughter to welcome the the transition of freedom into slavery

“If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
-George Washington
Nick, I've changed my mind about not posting on this thread. I'm back, but I'll stay on topic this time ok?

So my answer to the question: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Is no in my opinion, because as long as you have a voice that can say something about anything, then you will never be free, simply because speech is often met with opposition and that's the whole problem with words in general, they cause conflict and drama in that humans will literally believe a certain word to be offensive. .and if it's offensive then it'll be censored and the person will be shamed to have ever used the word, and then that shame will cause distress and then that distress will lead to hatred and resentment. This is the stupidity of human language in that some of it is highly offensive and can be totally destructive in a way that doesn't happen within the animal kingdom. Hoenestly Nick, I'd rather be born an animal than a human being.

Everyone with a voice is right because if they have something to say then that person is obviously believing what they say is right and true..they are saying something as they see it, so for them there is no doubt that what they say is right. But then when someone tells them they are wrong that's when conflicts arise. Then people get labeled bigots and hypocrites just because they happen to have different views. It's madness because how can one view be allowed to be but not another.

Nothing can be done about this phenomena that is unique to humans Nick.

In my opinion the only freedom that exists is not within the human realm of existence, it's in the animal realm of existence, but that's just my opinion. I think human beings are pathetic actually, sometimes I think I like them, but then they just end up disapointing me. So I then think why did I even like them. I could even be called a racist just because I happen to hold the view that I think humans are pathetic...it's all so pathetic.

.
I appreciate your response and believes it deserves the PM I just sent. I hope you will understand why

Nick_A
Posts: 4307
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Nick_A » Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:03 pm

The smoke clears and three is no other conclusion but that freedom is no longer fashionable and now are willing to sell it for that proverbial 30 pieces of silver. From one of my old posts:

viewtopic.php?t=23436&start=15
First the Preamble to the United States Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Negative liberties protect the people from the government.
“When a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise the original rights of self defense – to fight the government.” – Alexander Hamilton

“The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

Now read how Obama and the progressives want to transform America into a country preaching positive liberties.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderi ... f4f811593a

Obama’s radio interview offers four main take aways, which I summarize using his own words where possible:
First: “We still suffer from not having a Constitution that guarantees its citizens economic rights.” By positive economic rights, Obama means government protection against individual economic failures, such as low incomes, unemployment, poverty, lack of health care, and the like. Obama characterizes the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties,” which “says what the states can’t do to you (and) what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.” (Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you, to paraphrase John F. Kennedy).

Second, Obama regrets that the Constitution places “essential constraints” on the government’s ability to provide positive economic rights and that “we have not broken free” of these Constitutional impediments. Obama views the absence of positive economic liberties that the government must supply as a flaw in the Constitution that must be corrected as part of a liberal political agenda.

Third, Obama concludes that we cannot use the courts to break free of the limited-government constraints of the Founders. The courts are too tradition and precedent bound “to bring about significant redistributional change.” Even the liberal Warren Court “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” Obama opines that the civil-rights movement’s court successes cannot be duplicated with respect to income redistribution: The “mistake of the civil rights movement was (that it) became so court focused” and “lost track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground…In some ways we still suffer from that (mistake)."

Fourth, Obama argues that economic rights that the state must supply are ultimately to be established at the ballot box. Those who favor redistribution must gain legislative control through an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.” The electoral task of a redistributive President is therefore to craft coalitions of those who stand to benefit from government largess. The legislature, not the courts, must do this “reparative economic work.”

In sum, Obama views the Constitution as a flawed document from which we must “break free.” We need, instead, a “living” Constitution that refocuses from “negative rights” to requiring income redistribution from the Haves to provide “positive economic rights” to the Have Nots.

So the struggle for the soul of America becomes clear. It is a basic struggle for freedom from government influence to impose its will beyond what the Constitution allows . Our founding fathers warned us against it but the Obama types are dedicated to transforming negative liberties which protect us from government into positive liberties which impose statist slavery.
Since free speech is essential to protect freedom and the negative liberties the Constitution asserts, it is no surprise that those seeking to devolve freedom into statist slavery will want to eliminate free speech. All good things must come to an end. This includes the principles and values America was founded upon assuring the loss of freedom. So simple to say and so tragic to know.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by I Like Sushu » Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:56 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:03 pm
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin

As we have seen, free speech in the secular world is believed to inhibit the goal of a peaceful society. Society has evolved to create what are called “experts” who have been successfully educated to be able to tell you what to think and say. Experts have made free speech an archaic concept. Yet there are still some old fashioned people holding on to the proclaimed debunked concept of free speech, How can we deal with them?

NYC is leading the way in the defense of experts.

https://nypost.com/2019/09/26/city-bans ... t-of-hate/
It’s now against the law in New York City to threaten someone with a call to immigration authorities or refer to them as an “illegal alien” when motivated by hate.
The restrictions — violations of which are punishable by fines of up to $250,000 per offense — are outlined in a 29-page directive released by City Hall’s Commission on Human Rights.
“‘Alien’ — used in many laws to refer to a ‘noncitizen’ person — is a term that may carry negative connotations and dehumanize immigrants, marking them as ‘other,'” reads one passage of the memo. “The use of certain language, including ‘illegal alien’ and ‘illegals,’ with the intent to demean, humiliate, or offend a person or persons constitutes discrimination.”………………………..
Who can object to such social progress? When Rick Lewis hears about this you will be getting fines for referring to illegal aliens in your posts. Even now the experts in NY are planning to expand the ban on free speech to include loud obnoxious feminists. You will no longer be allowed to refer to them as a pain in the ass. It will cost another 250 grand to do so.

Freedom vs, statist slavery. The people are choosing statist slavery and the creation of experts to tell them what to think, do, and say, or risk the wrath of experts.
Ben Franklin didn’t believe the sacrifice of free speech was worth it. I don’t either. Do you?
What does it matter what I think? You’ll just delete my response. Case closed.

Walker
Posts: 6879
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Walker » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:53 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:03 pm
Ben Franklin didn’t believe the sacrifice of free speech was worth it. I don’t either. Do you?
Do you think that Franklin equated free speech with uninhibited speech, and free expression with uninhibited expression?

Every right carries responsibility.
Free speech is a right.
What is the responsibility of free speech?

“Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America” (1784).
Benjamin Franklin
https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 41-02-0280
Benjamin Franklin wrote:Having frequent occasions to hold public councils, they have acquired great order and decency in conducting them. The old men sit in the foremost ranks that warriors in the next, and the women and children in the hindmost. The business of the women is to take exact notice of what passes, imprint it in their memories (for they have no writing), and communicate it to their children. They are the records of the council, and they preserve traditions of the stipulations in treaties 100 years back; which, when we compare with our writings we always find exact. He that would speak, rises. The rest observe a profound silence. When he has finished and sits down, they leave him 5 or 6 minutes to recollect, that, if he has omitted anything he intended to say, or has anything to add, he may rise again and deliver it. To interrupt another, even in common conversation, is reckoned highly indecent. How different this from the conduct of a polite British House of Commons, where scarce a day passes without some confusion, that makes the speaker hoarse in calling to order; and how different from the mode of conversation in many polite companies of Europe, where, if you do not deliver your sentence with great rapidity, you are cut off in the middle of it by the impatient loquacity of those you converse with, and never suffered to finish it!

Nick_A
Posts: 4307
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Nick_A » Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:22 pm

Walker
Do you think that Franklin equated free speech with uninhibited speech, and free expression with uninhibited expression?

Every right carries responsibility.
Free speech is a right.
What is the responsibility of free speech?
Let's add John Adams to the mix
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
That is the idea. Free speech is essential for liberty but society now prefers statist slavery. so glorifies everything that defies human "character." Just consider what sells in movies like the Joker. Liberty is only possible when free speech reflects character. It no longer does so the American dream of one nation under God and its ideals must perish. Destruction and equality in slavery is fashionable now for the little people. Only the elite can profit from it and with power have no need for moral character but are content to fiddle while Rome burns.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests